HOW CASE LAW IS REFERENCED AND CITED AS LEGAL AUTHORITY
Supreme court opinions or cases are cited as “authority” by courts and by litigators, and are referenced by the names of the parties (case style) or a least one of them (in the case of an original proceeding) followed by the opinions location (volume and page number) in the South Western Reporter (S.W.3d), the leading compilation of case law published in print. The year the decision was handed down is included in parenthesis.
Almost nobody consults the printed and bound volumes of the South Western Reporter, which now number thousands, any more. This is because the content has long been available electronically and much more user-friendly, with hyperlink to cited cases. Google Scholar now also offers this feature, though its coverage is not complete match of what appears in the Reporters.
But the citation system based on published volumes has not been changed: The three-digit number before the "S.W.3d" identifies the volume number, while the number behind it identifies the page number. The "2d" and then the "3d" became necessary because the number of volumes ran beyond 999, so the volume count was restarted at 1, with 2nd and 3d added to denote the second and third series, respectively.
For natural persons, as opposed to governmental and corporate entities, only the last names are used in the case citations. For example: Kerlin v. Arias, 274 S.W.3d 666 (2008). Kerlin is short for Gilbert Kerlin Individually, and Gilbert Kerlin, Trustee, Windward Oil & Gas Corp., and PI Corp, Petitioners. Arias is short for Gloria Soto Arais, et al. as Respondents. The abbreviation "et al." means that there are additional parties who are not identified by name in the case style. The additional parties are omitted from the case cite, and long names of corporate entities are often abbreviated.
Cases decided as original proceedings only contain the name of the party on whose behalf the petition was filed; e.g. In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding). Reece is short for Coy Reece. In a mandamus proceeding, the filing party is called Relator, rather than Petitioner or Appellant.
For newly decided case, the citation for the South Western Reporter is not available immediately. In the interim, cases are therefore cited with information on where they can be found on Westlaw or Lexis-Nexis and/or with hyperlink to the Texas Supreme Court website, or both. These citations typically also include the cause number, which identifies the year in which the proceeding was commenced, and also includes the decision date, i.e. the date the opinions were released on the Supreme Court's website, which is typically a Friday;
e.g. In re Deepwater Horizon, No. 13-0670 (Tex. Feb. 13, 2015).
This was a high-profile case that was referred to the Texas Supreme Court by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for a decision on disputed insurance coverage for damages resulting from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico under state law. Such referrals are rare and are labeled "certified questions".
Supreme court opinions or cases are cited as “authority” by courts and by litigators, and are referenced by the names of the parties (case style) or a least one of them (in the case of an original proceeding) followed by the opinions location (volume and page number) in the South Western Reporter (S.W.3d), the leading compilation of case law published in print. The year the decision was handed down is included in parenthesis.
Almost nobody consults the printed and bound volumes of the South Western Reporter, which now number thousands, any more. This is because the content has long been available electronically and much more user-friendly, with hyperlink to cited cases. Google Scholar now also offers this feature, though its coverage is not complete match of what appears in the Reporters.
But the citation system based on published volumes has not been changed: The three-digit number before the "S.W.3d" identifies the volume number, while the number behind it identifies the page number. The "2d" and then the "3d" became necessary because the number of volumes ran beyond 999, so the volume count was restarted at 1, with 2nd and 3d added to denote the second and third series, respectively.
For natural persons, as opposed to governmental and corporate entities, only the last names are used in the case citations. For example: Kerlin v. Arias, 274 S.W.3d 666 (2008). Kerlin is short for Gilbert Kerlin Individually, and Gilbert Kerlin, Trustee, Windward Oil & Gas Corp., and PI Corp, Petitioners. Arias is short for Gloria Soto Arais, et al. as Respondents. The abbreviation "et al." means that there are additional parties who are not identified by name in the case style. The additional parties are omitted from the case cite, and long names of corporate entities are often abbreviated.
Cases decided as original proceedings only contain the name of the party on whose behalf the petition was filed; e.g. In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding). Reece is short for Coy Reece. In a mandamus proceeding, the filing party is called Relator, rather than Petitioner or Appellant.
For newly decided case, the citation for the South Western Reporter is not available immediately. In the interim, cases are therefore cited with information on where they can be found on Westlaw or Lexis-Nexis and/or with hyperlink to the Texas Supreme Court website, or both. These citations typically also include the cause number, which identifies the year in which the proceeding was commenced, and also includes the decision date, i.e. the date the opinions were released on the Supreme Court's website, which is typically a Friday;
e.g. In re Deepwater Horizon, No. 13-0670 (Tex. Feb. 13, 2015).
.JPG "Texas Supreme Court Opinions Released Feb. 13, 2015 (image of order page)") |
| Example of Opinion Release/Order Page: February 13. 2015 |
As seen in the Deepwater Horizon case, some cases only have one party’s name in the case style. More common examples that certified questions are mandamus proceedings cases; e.g In re The Office of the Attorney General; In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 364 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding); and some actually indicate what the case is about; e.g. In re Commitment of Hill.
Most case names, however, do not give any clue as to what the case was about, or what legal issues were raised on appeal. That said, some supreme court cases are easily recognized as important simply because a party is well-known. In In re Deepwater Horizon case decide in February is an obvious example. The parties in other cases become well-known only because the case in which they were a party happens to be the vehicle through which the Supreme Court answers a question importance to the jurisprudence of the state, and thereby creates precedent that is binding on all lower courts state-wide.
Most case names, however, do not give any clue as to what the case was about, or what legal issues were raised on appeal. That said, some supreme court cases are easily recognized as important simply because a party is well-known. In In re Deepwater Horizon case decide in February is an obvious example. The parties in other cases become well-known only because the case in which they were a party happens to be the vehicle through which the Supreme Court answers a question importance to the jurisprudence of the state, and thereby creates precedent that is binding on all lower courts state-wide.
LAW IN THE FORM OF OPINIONS FROM THE COURTS OF APPEALS
Unlike the opinions of the Supreme Court, not all of the opinions handed down in court of appeals cases are published in the Southwestern Reporter. Those that are not are called "unpublished" opinion, but that is really a misnomer because all such opinions are in fact published on the court's own website; are available via commercial data and litigation support services; and are also distributed by Google Scholar. Google Scholar now also harvests procedural orders, in addition to opinions deciding and dismissing appellate cases. So-called "unpublished" cases may even be cited as authority, though they do not carry the same weight as cases cited with the S.W.3d behind the case style.
Unlike the Supreme Court's decisions, the holding of a court of appeal on a particular issue of law is binding only on the lower courts within its jurisdiction (the geographically defined appellate district), and must not be inconsistent with supreme court precedent. If it is, or if the holding of one court of appeals on the same legal issue is at variance with the how a sister court has decided the same issue, the Supreme Court may be asked to decide the conflict. --> Conflicts jurisdiction.
THERE ARE APPEALS, AND THEN THERE ARE APPEALS BY A DIFFERENT NAME
Appeal vs. Mandamus / Habeas Corpus
A mandamus case filed in the court of appeals is actually denominated an "original" proceeding, but it is original only in the court of appeals and it still pertains to a trial judge's act or inaction in a pending case in a trial court. So, given those characteristics, a mandamus proceeding has most of the hallmarks of an appeal of the interlocutory variety. It is more similar to an interlocutory appeal than a regular appeal because it is typically brought while a case is pending in the trial court.
In a mandamus case, the case style is different (In re BCD as opposed to BCD vs XYZ) and the party bringing the complaint is called relator, rather than the appellant. The opposing "party" in the mandamus proceeding is technically the judge whose ruling or other conduct forms the basis for the complaint, while the other party in the underlying suit is called the "real party in interest", and not the appellee, as in a regular or interlocutory appeal. Beyond the difference in terminology, there are also different rules that govern these types of appeals, and what types of papers are used to support it.
The main purpose of a mandamus proceeding is to obtain relief against a judge when no other remedy is available and it would arguably be too late to pursue an appeal from a final judgment, for example when one party claims it should not be forced to turn over documents that contain trade secrets or confidential information, but the trial judge nevertheless orders them to do so. Under such circumstances, the resisting party may try to get the judge in question "mandamused" by appealing to higher authority, i.e. the court of appeals. The vehicle to do so is a petition for writ of mandamus, which may be accompanied by an emergency request for an immediate stay of the trial court's order.
A petition of habeas corpus filed in the court of appeals has much in common with a petition for a writ of mandamus, but is restricted to situations where the trial court's order puts the party in jail ("confinement").
Unlike the Supreme Court's decisions, the holding of a court of appeal on a particular issue of law is binding only on the lower courts within its jurisdiction (the geographically defined appellate district), and must not be inconsistent with supreme court precedent. If it is, or if the holding of one court of appeals on the same legal issue is at variance with the how a sister court has decided the same issue, the Supreme Court may be asked to decide the conflict. --> Conflicts jurisdiction.
THERE ARE APPEALS, AND THEN THERE ARE APPEALS BY A DIFFERENT NAME
Appeal vs. Mandamus / Habeas Corpus
A mandamus case filed in the court of appeals is actually denominated an "original" proceeding, but it is original only in the court of appeals and it still pertains to a trial judge's act or inaction in a pending case in a trial court. So, given those characteristics, a mandamus proceeding has most of the hallmarks of an appeal of the interlocutory variety. It is more similar to an interlocutory appeal than a regular appeal because it is typically brought while a case is pending in the trial court.
In a mandamus case, the case style is different (In re BCD as opposed to BCD vs XYZ) and the party bringing the complaint is called relator, rather than the appellant. The opposing "party" in the mandamus proceeding is technically the judge whose ruling or other conduct forms the basis for the complaint, while the other party in the underlying suit is called the "real party in interest", and not the appellee, as in a regular or interlocutory appeal. Beyond the difference in terminology, there are also different rules that govern these types of appeals, and what types of papers are used to support it.
The main purpose of a mandamus proceeding is to obtain relief against a judge when no other remedy is available and it would arguably be too late to pursue an appeal from a final judgment, for example when one party claims it should not be forced to turn over documents that contain trade secrets or confidential information, but the trial judge nevertheless orders them to do so. Under such circumstances, the resisting party may try to get the judge in question "mandamused" by appealing to higher authority, i.e. the court of appeals. The vehicle to do so is a petition for writ of mandamus, which may be accompanied by an emergency request for an immediate stay of the trial court's order.
A petition of habeas corpus filed in the court of appeals has much in common with a petition for a writ of mandamus, but is restricted to situations where the trial court's order puts the party in jail ("confinement").
No comments:
Post a Comment