Law Commons^™

Revisiting Standards Of Review In Civil Appeals., W. Wendell Hall

St. Mary's Law Journal

Applying and defining the accurate standard of review determines how likely an appeal will be successful. While the proper standard of review may be easy to identify, applying the standard of review to a case is often problematic. The standards define the interactions between trial and appellate courts by distributing the power of review throughout the judicial branch. The standards of review also limit a court’s authority to determine an error by a trial court, and whether the error warrants reversal. The standard sets the requirements of substantive law and provides a means for appellate judges to weigh arguments. This …

Proof Of Attorney's Fees In Texas., Scott A. Brister

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Texas, the complex and confusing rules defining proof of attorney’s fees require simplification. Texas, like many other states, follows the American Rule, meaning the plaintiff and defendant each pay their own attorney’s fees. The United States is the only common-law jurisdiction and virtually the only industrialized democracy following the American Rule. Two primary justifications support following the American Rule. First, the American Rule supports individuals seeking a judicial remedy by removing the obstacle of paying an opponent’s legal fees. Second, it reduces potential litigation, attendant time and expense that would be necessary to dispute legal fees if they were …

Framing A Texas Bill Of Rights Argument., James C. Harrington

St. Mary's Law Journal

As federal courts have allowed individual rights to diminish, the Texas judiciary nurtures state constitutional jurisprudence. Texas has a unique history requiring special care in approaching the construction and presentation of arguments utilizing the Texas Constitution or Texas Bill of Rights. The state constitution evolved over six revisions resulting with the eventual ratification of the final version in 1876. A confluence of goals ultimately resulted in a document where the bill of rights appears in Article I and by specifically framing individual liberties as affirmative rights rather than restrictions of government power. Four modes of interpretation are typically employed when …

Boyles V. Kerr: The Wrong Decision At The Right Time: Implications For Mental Anguish Damages Under The Dtpa, Charles E. Cantú, Jared Woodfull V

Faculty Articles

Mental anguish jurisprudence has witnessed a tumultuous evolution. Consumer law, as codified in the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, has been uniquely impacted by the evolving law of mental anguish.

Recently, the Texas Supreme Court reaffirmed the standard for recovery of mental anguish damages under the DTPA. In the case of Boyles v. Kerr, the Texas Supreme Court had the opportunity to reconcile mental anguish damages under the DTPA with mental anguish jurisprudence. However, instead of aggressively recognizing one’s interest in their emotional well-being, the court retreated, reversing almost a decade of mental anguish jurisprudence.

This recently reaffirmed standard for …