AUSTIN – On June 20, Attorney General Ken Paxton joined 12 states in calling on California Insurance Commissioner David Jones to cease and desist from requiring insurance companies to publicly disclose investments in fossil fuels and urging companies to sign a “pledge” to divest from the coal industry.
Told by his grade school teacher that he needed to present a note from his mother to explain the previous day's absence, little Ronnie obliged – with an excuse written on lined paper in crayon in big block letters and signed “Mom.” Needless to say, the teacher's suspicions were aroused and she proceeded to question the authenticity of the dubious document presented to her by the wily child. Fast forward a couple of decades and we have Houston attorney Ronald Tigner, Esq., trying to get on an airplane with an illegible boarding pass and meeting resistance from skeptical airline employees.
“The High Court put a dent in plaintiffs' long-established freedom to shop for the venue of their choosing when pressing patent infringement claims – potentially dealing a blow to the Eastern District of Texas’s prominence in hearing patent cases.” That's the assessment made of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision by intellectual property firm Morrison & Foerster, and we hope it proves accurate. An end to our prominence in these dubious endeavors would be a good thing and might prompt us to find some more acceptable kind of distinction.
“Nine out of ten doctors agree . . .” That was a classic claim made in pharmaceutical advertising, and the assertion of a consensus of alleged authorities sounds impressive, but what does it really mean? The claim raises many obvious questions, such as: Were thousands of doctors surveyed and 90 percent of them in agreement, or was it just ten doctors total? Do the doctors have actual expertise in the use of the product they've endorsed, or do their specialties lie elsewhere? Were they paid for their opinions? Perhaps most important, why does one out of ten doctors disagree?