Greg Abbott promised he would stick to the winning, pro-business ways of his predecessor, Rick Perry – embracing the same threefold goal of “lower taxes, less regulation, and more job creation” – and that's what he's doing.
Edinburg lawyer Kent Livesay, for one, used to enjoy – and profit from – a good storm, but now the clouds have gathered over his head and the sky is getting darker.
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.
You walk past a BBQ joint, look in the window, and see a happy guy with some sauce on the front of his shirt devouring a rack of ribs, and it makes you feel good. There might be a tinge of envy, but you can tell he's enjoying those juicy ribs and you can't help smiling. That’s called vicarious pleasure.
“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?
When the Texas House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence held a hearing seven years ago to discuss barratry in our state, Steve Mostyn agreed with those present that it was a problem and recommended prosecution of “swindlers.” What a kidder!
Two weeks ago, we opined, only half-jokingly, that one of the biggest differences between conservatives and liberals – and between Republicans and Democrats – is that the former look for things that are broken, so they can fix them, and the latter do the opposite.
Q. What's the difference between liberals and conservatives? A. Conservatives look for things that are broken, so they can fix them. Liberals do the opposite.
Last October, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the reversal of a $32 million settlement against Domino's pizza chain won by former Provost Umphrey (PU) attorney Paul Ferguson Jr.
It sometimes seems like Texas taxpayers bankrolled a billion-dollar trust fund for the personal use of attorney Steve Mostyn.
“I believe there are many funding opportunities in Texas and the Southwest,” said Eric Chenoweth, commercial and intellectual property litigator, formerly of Yetter Coleman and recently tapped to head the new Houston office of Australian litigation-funding firm Bentham IMF.