Noticed Anything? There's a Record Number of Cases Before Texas Appellate Courts
Texas' 14 intermediate appellate courts saw more appeals than ever in 2019, while the Texas Supreme Court saw more petitions for review than it…
February 05, 2020 at 03:31 PM
4 minute read
Texas' 14 intermediate appellate courts saw more appeals than ever in 2019, while the Texas Supreme Court saw more petitions for review than it has seen since 2002, according to a new report on the Texas judiciary.
Those numbers emerged from the most recent Annual Statistical Report for the Texas Judiciary, which covers the state's fiscal year of Sept. 1, 2018, to Aug. 31, 2019.
But despite their increasing workload, the appellate courts are still working efficiently, Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan Hecht said.
"The volume is up, and the supreme court is still clearing its docket of argued cases by the end of June. This year, certainly, we are on track," Hecht said. "The courts of appeals' clearance rate is down a little bit, but I think they will be back up. They work very hard."
Texas Lawyer compiled four factoids from the report for lawyers to review and checked in with Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan Hecht to add context to the data.
|1. More bustle
Intermediate appellate courts had their busiest year ever in 2019.
With 5,681 civil appeals filed in 2019, the Lone Star State's 14 courts of appeal handled the highest civil filing numbers in their history, the report said.
When compared to last year, civil appeals increased 2%. When looking at five years, the gain was 8%, said the report.
The 14 intermediate appellate courts issued nearly 9,900 opinions total during the fiscal year. Among them, 63% were original opinions on the merit and 25% were per curiam.
It is hard to know exactly why appeals are increasing, said Hecht.
"I think it's probably just more volume," he said, noting that the trial courts are seeing more litigation, which naturally leads to more appeals.
|2. 17% spike
Hecht said the same phenomenon of more trial court cases, and more intermediate appeals, also bumped the number of appeals in the high court.
The 981 petitions for review filed in the Supreme Court represented a 4% increase compared with 2018. There's been a 17% increase when looking at five years of data, said the report.
|3. Tidy Docket
Just because more people are filing appeals, doesn't mean the high court is taking all of those cases. The justices in fiscal year 2019 granted only 9% of petitions for review, and 3% of petitions for writ of mandamus, the report said.
Hecht said the Supreme Court still has to review all the cases that come in the door to determine whether to grant review. Staff attorneys and law clerks help with that increased workload, he noted, and technology has also made the busy work more efficient. For example, when Hecht joined the Supreme Court 30 years ago, justices still had to carry around paper copies of petitions for review.
"You had to move them from place to place, turn it page by page," he recalled. "Now, judges are able to access all the petitions in our case management system online. We vote online. It's just a lot more streamlined and efficient than it was years ago."
The impact of that efficiency may be that the court can clear cases from its docket faster than in years past.
The report said in 2019, the court still had 336 pending petitions for review at the end of the year, which is 10% fewer than in 2018. When comparing 2018 and 2019, the Supreme Court's number of regular causes left pending at year's end dropped by 4% and other pending petitions decreased by 6%.
|4. What happened?
When the Supreme Court does expect review of an appeal, about half of the time the justices are going to reverse the court of appeals' ruling, the report showed. The statistics show a high level of agreement among the court's nine justices and a low level of disagreement on case outcomes.
|Here's a breakdown of the outcomes of Supreme Court appeals:
- Reversed – 50%
- Affirmed – 21%
- Modified – 17%
- Other – 11%
- Dismissed – 1%
Here's a breakdown of the types of opinions the high court issued in 2019:
- Majority – 65%
- Per curiam – 14%
- Concurring – 8%
- Dissenting – 8%
- Concurring & dissenting – 4%
Read the full report:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All11 Red State AGs Demand Damages in Antitrust Lawsuit Shaming ESG Climate Investors
3 minute readEven With New Business Courts, Texas Is a Long Way from Taking Delaware's Corporate Law Mantle
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250