Tuesday, March 31, 2020

Texas State Law Library provides update on resources available during COVID-19 pandemic

Originally published by Adam Faderewski.

The Texas State Law Library may be closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic but many resources may be accessed online.

The law library has established an online portal for asking questions of the librarians, who remain on hand to answer any questions by phone or email. The “Ask a Librarian” page has instructions on how reference librarians can assist you (including how they are unable) as well as FAQs and self-help resources.

The library’s “Disasters & Emergencies” page has been updated to reflect the latest information pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic. The page is broken down by national, Texas, and local news resources, including current emergency and disaster locations, what is a “disaster” or “emergency,” who can declare a state of emergency, and emergency preparedness.

Additionally, patrons can access the digital collection, which includes practice guides, legal treatises, and self-help materials that can be borrowed and read in a web browser. The resources are available to all Texans and simply require the creation of a library account online.

Librarians can be contacted by phone at 844-829-2843 or 512-463-1722.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2WYVaIk
via Abogado Aly Website

Executing Estate Planning Documents in a Pandemic

Originally published by Rania Combs.

If you’re like most Americans, you’ve probably
procrastinated on getting your affairs in order. According to a recent study,
only a third of American adults have basic estate planning documents in place.

Procrastination is easy for unpleasant tasks. And there are
few tasks that seem more unpleasant than estate planning. The process forces us
to confront our mortality and consider heartbreaking subjects like who will
raise our children if tragedy strikes.

But the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the urgency of
having Wills, Trusts, and Powers of Attorney in place for all Americans, young
and old. And although it’s possible to work remotely with an attorney to get these
documents prepared, social distancing and stay-at-home orders are preventing
Texans from getting these important documents signed in a manner that complies
with statutory requirements.

So what is the best way to proceed during these
unprecedented times?

Consider a Holographic Will

To be valid, a typewritten will in Texas must be signed by the person making the Will, and signed by two witnesses in your presence.

If you are one of millions of Americans practicing social
distancing to curb the spread of the COVID-19 virus, and you don’t want to risk
being around other people at this time, you may want to consider a holographic
Will.

A holographic Will is a Will wholly in the handwriting of the testator and signed by him or her. In an emergency situation, a holographic Will can be a great stop-gap measure for simple estates until more formal documents can be prepared and executed with the requisite formalities.

Consider a Revocable Trust with a Holographic Pourover Will

A revocable trust is a written document that directs how
your property will be managed during your life, and how it will be disposed of
at the time of your death. Revocable trusts work in conjunction with a pourover
Will. A pourover Will acts as a safety net, catching any asset inadvertently
left out of your trust and transferring it into the trust upon your death.

While most Revocable Trust agreements are notarized,
notarization is not strictly a requirement of a valid Revocable Trust in Texas.
Therefore, if you require more complex planning, it would be possible for an
attorney to prepare a revocable trust agreement, and then provide clear
guidance on handwriting a very short Pour Over Will leaving all assets to the
attorney-prepared trust.

This would allow a you to create a dispositive plan without the need for any other person to be present until more formal planning can take place.

Take Extraordinary Measures if Formally Executing Documents

Not everyone who contracts COVID-19 exhibits any symptoms, but asymptomatic individuals can still transmit the virus. In other words, just because potential witnesses or a notary appear well doesn’t mean they are. Therefore, it is important that you take all necessary precautions to avoid infection.

If you decide to formally execute your documents in front
witnesses and a notary, consider setting up a table outside with your
documents, and requesting that everyone approach the table in turn with their
own pens to sign as witnesses. If you are one of the lucky Americans who have
been able to purchase hand sanitizer, perhaps have the witnesses sanitize
before touching the paperwork for extra precaution.

A medical power of attorney does not need to be signed in
front of a notary. It is valid if it is signed in front of a notary or in front
of two witnesses; however, financial powers of attorney must be signed in front
of a notary to be valid.

Note that there is Texas statute that spells out who can make medical decisions on your behalf if you if you do not have a medical power of attorney, which you can read by clicking on the link.

Signing estate planning documents during a pandemic can be a
challenge. Your estate planning attorney can help you navigate your choices to
ensure the documents you execute will be valid if or when they are needed.

The post Executing Estate Planning Documents in a Pandemic appeared first on Texas Wills and Trusts Law Online.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/33YIJOi
via Abogado Aly Website

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Weighs in on Hydraulic Fracturing and Subsurface Trespass

Originally published by Jamie D. Rhymes, Jeffrey D. Lieberman and Caleb J. Madere.

In January of this year, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania tackled an issue that has been confronted by few other courts—whether the rule of capture precludes a claim for subsurface trespass due to hydraulic fracturing.[1]

Prior to the Pennsylvania ruling, there were two seminal cases that have addressed the issue and reached conflicting results.  The first is a 2008 Texas Supreme Court decision in which the court framed the issue as “whether subsurface hydraulic fracturing of a natural gas well that extends into another’s property is a trespass for which the value of gas drained as a result may be recovered as damages.”[2]  Both the trial court and the appellate court awarded damages to the plaintiffs for the gas drained.  The Texas Supreme Court reversed, finding that the rule of capture precluded an actionable trespass claim.  The court found that an actionable trespass claim requires an injury and that the only claimed injury in this case—drainage of gas from beneath the plaintiff’s property—was barred by the rule of capture.[3]  Notably, the court left open the possibility that a plaintiff could recover in the event the plaintiff suffered non-drainage damages such as damage to the reservoir, but that was not alleged in this particular case.

The second prelude to the recent Pennsylvania decision was a 2013 Federal District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia ruling in Stone v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.[4]  Although the Stone decision was ultimately vacated on a joint motion after the parties settled, the court’s ruling is instructive.  Applying West Virginia law, the district court found that the rule of capture does not apply when hydraulic fracturing extends beyond subsurface property lines.  The court relied heavily on the reasoning of the dissenting opinion in Garza, finding that “the common law rule of capture is not a license to plunder.”[5]

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s recent decision provides additional guidance on the issue, but still leaves some unanswered questions surrounding hydraulic fracturing and subsurface trespass claims.  Plaintiffs, unleased mineral owners, owned a tract of land adjacent to property leased by Southwestern Energy Production Company.  Southwestern operated several wells on the leased tract, several of which were hydraulically fractured.  Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that Southwestern produced gas from beneath their land as a result of the hydraulic fracturing operations, but, importantly, did not allege in their petition that Southwestern caused any fluids or proppants to physically intrude onto plaintiffs’ property.

Southwestern filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the rule of capture bars plaintiffs’ trespass claim, which the trial court granted.[6]  Plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s decision relying heavily on the argument that hydraulic fracturing is an artificial means of forcing gas that is otherwise trapped in a tight formation to migrate and, thus, the rule of capture should not apply.[7]  The two-judge panel for the Superior Court reversed the trial court decision, agreeing in part with the plaintiffs’ argument that hydraulic fracturing is different than conventional drilling and should not be treated the same as conventional drilling under the rule of capture.  The panel found that plaintiffs may have a claim for trespass, particularly if they can show that there was a physical intrusion beneath their property.[8]  Accordingly, the panel held that summary judgment was premature and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings to determine whether there had been a physical invasion.[9]

Southwestern appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, submitting a single question for review: “Does the rule of capture apply to oil and gas produced from wells that were completed using hydraulic fracturing and preclude trespass liability for allegedly draining oil or gas from under nearby property, where the well is drilled solely on and beneath the driller’s own property and the hydraulic fracturing fluids are injected solely on or beneath the driller’s own property?”[10]  Notably, Southwestern did not ask the court to address whether the rule of capture bars a claim for trespass if the stimulated fractures extend beyond subsurface property lines.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania vacated the Superior Court’s ruling and remanded the case back to the Superior Court for reconsideration.[11]  Perhaps most importantly, the Supreme Court rejected the Superior Court’s suggestion that the rule of capture does not apply to hydraulic fracturing due to the fact that hydraulic fracturing is an artificial means to stimulate production.  The court reasoned that every oil and gas well, whether conventional or otherwise, artificially creates a pressure gradient that causes minerals to flow towards the wellbore that otherwise would have remained in place.[12]  Accordingly, the rule of capture is not rendered inapplicable simply because hydraulic fracturing provides an additional mechanism by which operators stimulate production.

Southwestern also argued that the traditional notions of trespass should not extend miles below the surface just as those notions do not extend miles above the surface.[13]  The Court recognized that this theory has been adopted by some states, but determined that this theory related to actual trespass claims involving a physical invasion did not fall within the limited issue for review.[14]

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s recent decision in Briggs does provide some additional guidance moving forward.  The decision makes a well-reasoned argument as to why hydraulic fracturing should be treated no different than conventional drilling practices for purposes of the rule of capture, which is an important threshold issue in subsurface trespass suits.  However, the decision was expressly limited to situations where there has been no physical invasion of proppants, frac water, etc.  If the plaintiffs can show that there has been a physical invasion, it seems likely Southwestern will appeal back to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to determine whether the rule of capture bars a subsurface trespass claim when there has been a physical invasion.  This case will be one to watch as it moves forward in the lower Pennsylvania courts.

If you have any questions concerning the Briggs v. Southwestern Energy Production Company decision or other legal issues relating to hydraulic fracturing and subsurface trespass, please contact Jamie Rhymes, Jeff Lieberman, or Caleb Madere.

[1]              Briggs v. Southwestern Energy Production Company, 2020 WL 355911 (Pa. 2020).

[2]              Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. v. Garza Energy Trust, 268 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Tx. 2008).

[3]              Id. at 12-13.

[4]              No. 5:12–CV–102, 2013 WL 2097397 (N.D. W. Va. Apr. 10).

[5]              Id. at p.6 (quoting Young v. Ethyl Corp., 521 F.2d 771 (8th Cir.1975)).

[6]              Briggs, 2020 WL 355911 at p. *5.

[7]             Briggs v. Southwestern Energy Production Company, 184 A.3d 153, 156-57 (Pa. Super. 2018).

[8]              Id. at 162-63.

[9]              Id. at 164.

[10]             Briggs, 2020 WL 355911 at p. *7.

[11]             Id. at *14.

[12]             Id. at *11.

[13]             Id. at *13.

[14]             Id.

Disclaimer: This Blog/Web Site is made available by the law firm of Liskow & Lewis, APLC (“Liskow & Lewis”) and the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice as to an identified problem or issue. By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state regarding a particular matter.

Privacy Policy: By subscribing to Liskow & Lewis’ E-Communications, you will receive articles and blogs with insight and analysis of legal issues that may impact your industry. Communications include firm news, insights, and events. To receive information from Liskow & Lewis, your information will be kept in a secured contact database. If at any time you would like to unsubscribe, please use the SafeUnsubscribe® link located at the bottom of every email that you receive.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2w3JBEN
via Abogado Aly Website

Social Distancing and Quarantine Shut Down Patent Cases

Originally published by Peggy Keene.

Hatch-Waxman.jpeg

The Effect on Hatch-Waxman Act Stays as Coronavirus Concerns Create Court Delays

As more and more of the American population becomes subject to mandated quarantines and curfews, the new orders have had an unforeseen effect on patent cases involving generic and patented prescription drugs.  The Hatch-Waxman Act entitles certain drug patent owners a 30-month stay in which the FDA won’t grant final approval of a generic drug after a lawsuit if filed.

Patent Cases Affected as Courts Shut Down Due to Coronavirus Concerns

Currently, courts all around the United States have been shut down due to restrictions on travel and social gatherings.  As a result, many cases struggling to continue have required attorneys to collect documents and depose witnesses remotely.  While remote conferencing has been able to fill some of the void, many attorneys have complained that the restrictions prompted by the global pandemic have made meeting federal court deadlines difficult if not next to impossible.

In addition to difficulties related to interstate travel, the District of Delaware, currently the busiest district for patent cases, was specifically shut down after an attorney appearing there was flagged as testing positive for the coronavirus.  While courts are allowed to conduct hearings and bench trials in the alternative, many courts are reluctant to substitute such proceedings despite having clear discretion to do so.

Court Docket Delays and Hatch-Waxman Act 30-Month Stay

The Hatch-Waxman Act, which triggers a thirty-month stay on federal approval of generic drugs, has put attorneys up against a particularly difficult deadline to meet because court dockets and schedules are so delayed.  The Hatch-Waxman Act has historically not posed a problem to the concerned parties as judges generally create patent trial schedules that fit comfortably within that time frame.

But as there has been no word from the federal government regarding whether they will automatically extend the patent stays, many prescription drug companies are worried that the expiration of the thirty-month stays granted by the Hatchman-Waxman Act will open the door to generic product substitutes to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration before the patent lawsuits can even be heard in court.

Will Government Intervene to Extend Hatch-Waxman Stays Due to Coronavirus Pandemic?

As prescription drug companies have deep pockets and clearly vested interest in not allowing generic substitutes to be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, many experts in the field expect that these companies will act to either have the Hatch-Waxman stays extended or alternatively lobby for the delay of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of generic drugs.

Unfortunately, under the current framework, there is no judicial power related to global pandemics that would allow for judges to grant such extensions.  Instead, courts can only extend the stay on regulatory approval if it is obvious that one of the litigating parties is not cooperating in the progression of the litigation at hand.  As such, because the delay is being caused by a global pandemic impacting both parties equally, the courts do not have the proper judicial power to grant such extensions.

Legal Considerations for Parties Involved in Hatch-Waxman Act Stay

In the meantime, with the absence of federal oversight, litigating parties can still pursue alternative solutions.  For example, the litigating parties may privately agree to not conduct or seek further action in the lawsuit until the legal landscape returns to normal.  Because either party could be found to be liable for patent infringement once the courts return to their regular schedules, despite the delays, both parties have incentive to not rely on the expiration of the stay as a signal for the generic substitute to launch.

Overall, despite whatever the litigating parties decide amongst themselves, experts in the field stress that counsel for both sides should begin considering alternatives now.

Key Takeaways on Coronavirus Pandemic Effects on Hatch-Waxman Act Patent Cases 

The global pandemic of coronavirus has had unforeseen effects on patent drug lawsuits.  As courts have closed down due to the coronavirus, litigation involving generic and patented prescription drugs face new challenges that include:

  • the potential expiration of Hatch-Waxman stays;

  • the inability to conduct depositions and document collection on site;

  • the inability to argue the lawsuit in court; and

  • the potential approval of generic drug substitutes before the related patent infringement case is heard.

LinkedIn_Graphics_2018_Final_Intellectual Property Trends.png

patents

Read more


You may also be interested in:


Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2R2Aw6m
via Abogado Aly Website

Preliminary Injunction Blocks Dallas Paid Sick Time Ordinance

Originally published by Robert G. Chadwick, Jr..

By Robert G. Chadwick, Jr., Managing Member, Seltzer, Chadwick, Soefje & Ladik, PLLC.

As noted in an earlier blog post, the City of Dallas enacted a paid sick time ordinance which became effective on August 1, 2019 for private employers with six (6) or more employees. Under the Ordinance, no penalties were to be assessed, except for anti-retaliation violations, until April 1, 2020.

On June 30, 2019, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to stop the ordinance from taking effect. On March 30, 2020, two days before the ability of the City of Dallas to assess penalties, the Court issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the ordinance. The court’s reasoning was similar to that used by the Texas Third Court of Appeals in finding Austin’s paid sick time ordinance unconstitutional.

Since the ordinance has been in effect for eight months, many Dallas employers have already implemented sick leave policies in compliance with its prescriptions. Although likely welcomed by most Dallas employers, the preliminary injunction nevertheless presents the difficult question of whether to continue such policies, thereby incurring increased payroll costs, or to discontinue such policies, thereby risking poor employee morale or attrition.

Robert G. Chadwick, Jr. frequently speaks to non-profit organizations regarding labor & employment issues. To contact him for a speaking engagement please e-mail him at rchadwick@realclearcounsel.com

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2WWbHga
via Abogado Aly Website

Stories of Recovery: The Wake-up Call

Originally published by Guest Blogger.

Editor’s note: TLAP offers confidential assistance for lawyers, law students, and judges with substance use or mental health issues. Call TLAP at 1-800-343-8527 (TLAP), text TLAP to 555888, or find more information at tlaphelps.org.

I am a trial lawyer. When I started practice 46 years ago, trial lawyers “were required” to work hard, play hard, and drink hard. I took great pride in not drinking until 5:01 p.m. (Well, except for a few beers with barbecue at lunch on Friday.) As a young lawyer, Johnny Walker, Jack Daniels, and I tried a lot of cases. We won some, lost some, but won our share. Trouble started when Jack Daniels became first chair. A symptom of alcoholism is denial. Say what you will, but you can’t drink until 2 a.m. and bring your A game to court at 9 a.m. I really lost control when Johnny Walker became my senior partner. My life at the office and at home started spinning out of control. But I kept drinking.

I got a wake-up call when I failed a liver test. I quit drinking for a year—really only a month—but it seemed like a year. The next liver test was normal, a high normal, but normal. Realizing that I needed to do something about my drinking, I tried two drinks a night. If you take that route, you should stay out of bars because they only give you one-and-a-half-ounce drinks. You must drink at home, and I suggest the 44-ounce Slurpee cup you can get at any 7-Eleven. As you can imagine, it wasn’t long before I failed another liver test. I went back to not drinking for a month, and it was a miserable month at that. I passed the next liver test with a high borderline normal. This time I tried drinking only on weekends and, of course, special occasions. The definition of “special occasions” quickly expanded from holidays and my birthday to win a trial, lose a trial, do a good job on a deposition, do a bad job on a deposition, do a good job answering interrogatories. I failed the next test.

This time my doctor told me I had two options: (A) stop drinking or (B) die. Wanting to show him I wasn’t a wimp, I said, “If I choose B how long will I live?” His answer stopped me cold, and I vividly remember it to this day: “If you’re lucky, not long.” Stunned, I asked, “What do you mean?” He replied, “Cirrhosis is a horrible way to die, and hopefully it will kill you quick.”

I realized that I could not control my drinking. My only option was to stop completely. I was scared to death I couldn’t stop. I was terrified. What saved me? People who loved me convinced me to get help, and I haven’t had a drink since.

Quitting drinking was the scariest thing I have ever done in my life. First, it was such a huge part of my life that I felt lost and didn’t know what to do with all this newfound time.  Second, I truly believed my career was over. Who would hire a morally defective lawyer who did not have enough self-discipline to control his drinking? Again, people who loved me helped me. I started going to the gym at 5:01 p.m. When I would go to a function where everyone was drinking, people would offer me a drink. When I refused, they would ask, “You aren’t drinking?” I would nervously explain that I had a problem with alcohol. More often than not, the response was, “No kidding!”

To my surprise, my business did not suffer. In fact, I found people and clients admired me for quitting. There is probably not a family in America that has not been adversely affected by drugs or alcohol. I soon found I was a much better lawyer after firing Johnny and Jack.

I have now been sober 35 years. Had I not sought help, I would have lost my practice, lost my family, and probably be dead. If drinking has become a problem in your life, get help. Alcoholism is a progressive disease. If you are an alcoholic, you will stop drinking some day; it is better to be alive when it happens.

 

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2UJZFDS
via Abogado Aly Website

The Not-So-New World of Remote Depositions

Originally published by Rene White Moarefi.

Contrary to popular belief, remote depositions are not a new thing. What is new is the temporary suspension of the requirement that the deposition officer, aka certified shorthand reporter, be in the physical presence of the witness. As COVID-19 keeps us all at home, here are some important tips to remember when conducting a remote deposition.

Sound is everything. If we can’t hear you, we can’t take it down. Most applications allow for attending via audio and video. It is highly recommended that you use your computer or other device to connect for the video and call in with your phone for the audio. It produces better sound and reduces the bandwidth needed. That is important now because almost everyone in nearly every industry is working remotely and using valuable, much-needed bandwidth.

You will obviously need to use a speakerphone or a headset with a built-in microphone. Even though other attendees can see you, you are not being “videotaped,” so don’t worry about what it looks like. If you choose to use a speakerphone and are using your smartphone while at home, please consider purchasing a Bluetooth wireless speaker with a built-in mic. The sound is superior to just talking through your phone’s speaker. There are several options out there; for example, Bose and Jabra are two popular brands. Make sure to get one with a USB cable so it can be plugged in and stay charged throughout the proceeding.

Make sure to have the speakers on your computer muted. There will be feedback if you don’t. And don’t forget to put your phone on do not disturb so you aren’t interrupted with text messages and phone calls. Also mute your phone when you are not speaking. This will prevent disruptions due to paper being rustled, coughs, typing on keyboards, etc.

Internet connection—this is just as important as sound. This is written with the assumption you are attending from home. Check your broadband speed—you can do this by going to speedtest.net. If it’s not fast enough, call your provider and upgrade your service. If you have the capability to connect with an Ethernet cable, that will provide the best quality.

Check your surroundings. If you’re attending from home, find a quiet place where you won’t be interrupted and check what is behind you. Remember, everyone can see it. Some applications allow you to use a virtual background, which is a great way to “camouflage” any clutter or distractions. Also dress professionally. This is still a formal legal proceeding. If you’re in your pajamas or shorts from the waist down and stand up during a break, everyone will see you unless you stop your video feed.

Exhibits—everyone is wondering what to do. There are several ways to manage this. Obviously, the exhibits will have to be scanned in ahead of time. In the deposition setting, you must decide in advance whether to send a set to the reporter only or to the reporter and all other counsel who will be attending.

Ideally for the court reporter, premarking the exhibits is best. It makes it easier for everyone to keep track of what exhibits are being used, even if you don’t use all of the exhibits that you premarked. But this is not a requirement.

If you send PDF files to the reporter and nothing is premarked, you will need to give the reporter time during the proceedings to at least rename the PDF file to the correct exhibit number so he or she can keep track of the exhibits. Some reporters can place an electronic exhibit sticker on a PDF document, but it takes time during the proceedings to do this. Ultimately, everyone must agree that the set of exhibits that the reporter has is the official set.

Talk to your favorite court reporter and/or court-reporting firm about options.

Starting the deposition and swearing in the witness. When you log in to the remote session and are prompted to enter your name, please fill in your full name. The reporter will use this to more easily identify you when you are speaking. This can reduce the number of times the reporter may need to stop for clarification.

Before the witness is sworn, the reporter will likely ask everyone present to identify themselves. Please remember to speak one at a time.

The reporter should verify a witness’ identity prior to beginning the deposition by either asking to see a driver’s license or having counsel confirm the witness’ identity. The reporter will then likely read a statement into the record referring to the First Emergency Order Regarding the COVID-19 State of Disaster § 2(b-c).

The deposition will then proceed as most depositions do. We all know the instruction given to witnesses about not talking at the same time and not interrupting. This is extremely crucial in a remote setting. Many times when two people speak simultaneously in a remote setting, one voice is completely lost and the words are gone forever. Please be patient when the reporter interrupts during these times. He or she is merely trying to protect your record. There will likely be a request for something to be repeated. It’s just the nature of the beast.

Security. If you have any virtual assistant device like an Echo for Alexa or a Google Home Hub, either unplug or mute those devices so they can’t pick up any of the proceedings as they occur. We know they are listening.

Also, once everyone has joined the meeting, have the host lock the meeting to prevent any unwanted guests from joining.

Lastly, test everything before the deposition. Reporting firms are more than happy to do a test run and will help you work out the kinks. Please contact the firm at least several days prior to the scheduled date of the deposition to test everything and become comfortable with this new setting.

Together we can keep legal proceedings moving forward.

RENE’ WHITE MOAREFI
is treasurer of the Texas Deposition Reporters Association. She is a certified shorthand reporter, certified real-time reporter, and registered professional reporter.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2QZY1Nn
via Abogado Aly Website

Surrounding Circumstances Don’t Always Inform Deed Construction

Originally published by Charles Sartain.

Here we continue our discussion of the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion in Piranha Partners et al. v. Joe B. Neuhoff et al. determining that an assignment of an overriding royalty in minerals unambiguously conveyed the override in production under an entire lease. The Court concluded that circumstances surrounding the transaction didn’t matter. Here was the first round.

Surrounding circumstances …

May be considered in construing a deed or other instrument to

  • aid the understanding of an unambiguous contract,
  • inform the meaning of the language actually used, and
  • provide context or elucidate the meaning of the words employed.

It is not the same as

The parole evidence rule …

Which prohibits reliance on evidence to

  • create ambiguity in the text,
  • altar or contradict the terms of an unambiguous contract,
  • show what the parties probably meant,
  • admit something other than what their agreement stated, or
  • make the language say what it unambiguously does not say.

No help to nobody

Piranha purchased Neuhoff’s interest through an oil and gas clearinghouse auction involving 1,200 properties located in 14 states. There was no negotiation between parties and the winning bidders typically acquired interests as-is, where-is, and without warranty of title. To enter its interests at the auction Neuhoff agreed:

  • To use “reasonable efforts” to accurately and completely describe the properties and all WI’s, ORRI’s and other interests on an exhibit attached to the agreement and on all property datasheets,
  • To provide additional information that prospective bidders might reasonably request for the purpose of verifying the accuracy and completion completeness of the information concerning the properties,
  • To use reasonable efforts to respond to reasonable questions from bidders,
  • It had not fractionalized its interests but was selling all of his interest in same, and
  • All interests in the property were available for sale.

Piranha had to register as a qualified bidder and to make representations such as it:

  • Was a sophisticated buyer,
  • Received all documents and information it reasonably required to evaluate the properties,
  • Performed its own due diligence to its complete satisfaction, and
  • Understood that the terms of the conveyance document would prevail.

A Sale Brochure and Auction Catalog identified the well “Puryear B 1-28″ N. Mills Ranch, Wheeler County, TX, a .0375 overriding royalty interest …”. A Property Data sheet identified the description as the “NW/4 Sect. 28 … .”. After the sale the auction house provided a Detail Invoice describing the interest as the Puryear B #1-28.

The parties argued back and forth about what the Sales Brochure and related documents meant, but the Court said the documents didn’t matter. The buyer was required to look at the data package and conveyance documents for a complete representation of restrictions associated with the property. The catalog said it was provided for convenience purposes only and bidders should verify all information. The data sheet said due diligence and verification by buyer were required.

The dissent: The deed is ambiguous

Two justices would have found the property description ambiguous, remand to a jury to “break the logjam”, and let each side emphasize the surrounding circumstances in favor of its interpretation. When competing interpretations are reasonable and no context favors one over another, the contract is ambiguous.

The dissent relied on “… INSOFAR AND ONLY INSOFAR as set out in Exhibit A … ”, which described the NW/4 and the well. The majority, they say, ignored those descriptive limitations. Because the description contained an expressed geographic reference to the NW/4 the majority’s construction was the least reasonable of the three readings.

That the court should take a holistic and harmonizing approach to deed construction does not also mean that all provisions of the document will be helpful in interpreting an ambiguous provision.

Today’s musical interlude describes a place that would be nice to find.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/33Zb6vH
via Abogado Aly Website

Much Ado About Joint Employers at the NLRB

Originally published by Remi Balogun and Douglas A. Darch.

In February 2020, the NLRB finally unveiled its long-awaited joint-employer rule governing joint-employer status under the NLRA. The final rule returns the test for determining joint employment to the standard the Board applied for several decades before the 2015 Browning-Ferris decision. The test set forth by the new joint-employer rule provides that a business is a joint employer only if it has “substantial direct and immediate control” over another company’s workers and actually exercises that control. While this is no doubt a welcome relief for employers who routinely contract with subcontractors and staffing companies, it is important to note the limited scope and that this rule does not impact joint-employer tests applied under other employment laws. The proposed rule was initially released in late 2018 and ultimately generated nearly 30,000 public comments (see our coverage here).

Although the rule is an employer-friendly change, employees who are terminated for engaging in protected concerted actives will continue to have a claim for relief against their primary employer. Similarly, union organizing efforts can continue amongst temporary employees as they have for years. Bargaining will continue to occur as it always has between employers and their employees’ union representatives. The labor movement, however, is likely disappointed by the demise of the 2015 Browning-Ferris rule.  For years, unions have chaffed at the prohibition against secondary boycotts contained in the Taft Hartley Act of 1947. The 2015 Browning-Ferris rule allowed a backdoor repeal of a significant portion of the secondary boycott ban with its loose definition of joint employer.

 

The NLRB has limited resources and has historically refused to act in matters where the decision was not likely to have a significant impact on employees’ Section 7 rights or their exercise of those rights. Given these principles, as well as the limited impact of decisions from joint-employer test litigation and the enormous expense of litigating the joint-employer test under the Browning-Ferris standard, the NLRB’s return to the pre Browning-Ferris test is not surprising.

Under the NLRB’s Final Rule:

  • A business is considered a joint employer of a separate employer’s employees if the two employers share or codetermine the employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment.
  • A business is a joint employer if it both possesses and exercises substantial direct and immediate control over one or more essential terms and conditions of employment.
  • Substantial means that the requisite control is not exercised on a “sporadic, isolated, or de minimis basis.”
  •  “Limited and routine” instructions consisting of telling another employer’s employees what work to perform, or when and where to perform the work, but not how to perform the work does not rise to the level of the direct and immediate control needed to establish that a business is a joint employer.
  • Essential terms and conditions of employment are hiring, firing, discipline, supervision, direction, wages, benefits and hours worked.
  • Indirect and contractually reserved-but-unexercised control over essential terms and conditions is probative of joint-employer status, but only to the extent it supplements and reinforces evidence of the entity’s possession or exercise of direct and immediate control over a particular essential term and condition of employment.
  • Similarly, control over mandatory subjects of bargaining is probative of joint-employer status, but only to the extent it supplements and reinforces evidence of the entity’s possession or exercise of direct and immediate control over a particular essential term and condition of employment.

Key Takeaways for Employers

Employers should continue to review their business practices and contracts to ensure their employment relationships with contractors and suppliers are structured to comply with the guidelines and examples provided in the NLRB’s final rule. Subcontractors with union-represented workforces have a very real incentive to agree to cede or share control over essential terms and conditions of employment because a joint employer is obligated to engage in bargaining with the union over the decision to terminate the joint-employer relationship. In addition, training managers to avoid performing tasks likely to give rise to allegations of direct control remains paramount.

The final rule, which will take effect on April 27, 2020, provides a clearer standard and will likely streamline litigation related to an employer’s status as a joint employer. However, litigation challenging the rule itself is likely. We will provide updates on further developments.

For more, please contact your Baker McKenzie lawyer.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2wF9NpL
via Abogado Aly Website

Monday, March 30, 2020

“Boilerplate” in Judgments Has Consequences

Originally published by Carrington Coleman.

B.C. v. Steak N Shake Operations, Inc.
Supreme Court of Texas, No. 17-1008 (March 27, 2020)
Per Curiam Opinion (linked here)
Ken Carroll

We’ve all included something like this in our proposed orders, submitted to the trial court at a summary judgment hearing: “After considering the pleadings, evidence, and arguments of counsel, the Court finds that the motion should be granted.” Standard. Professional. But innocuous, right? Not really, the Supreme Court tells us.

B.C., who worked at a Steak ‘n Shake, alleged her supervisor sexually assaulted her. Steak ‘n Shake moved for summary judgment, urging both traditional and no-evidence grounds. B.C. submitted a response (with over 400 pages of evidence attached) for electronic filing on the day it was due, but said “her filing was rejected ‘because one of the exhibits was not formatted for optical character recognition.’” She corrected the technical glitch and re-filed the next day—one day after the deadline, without seeking leave to file late. Steak ‘n Shake filed a reply and objected to the late filing. The trial court granted summary judgment to Steak ‘n Shake. Its summary judgment order made no mention of Steak ‘n Shake’s objection to the late-filed response and evidence, but did contain the broad recitation quoted above, that the court had “consider[ed] the pleadings, evidence, and arguments of counsel.” The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for Steak ‘n Shake, concluding in the process that the trial court had not considered B.C.’s late-filed response and evidence, and that it could not do so on appeal.

But the Supreme Court disagreed, reversed, and remanded. The Court acknowledged that, where there is nothing in the record to indicate the trial court granted leave for a summary judgment response and evidence to be filed late, it is presumed leave was not granted and that the tardy filing was not considered by the court. But, the Court said, an appeals court should review the record thoroughly for any “affirmative indication that the trial court permitted [and considered] the late filing.” Here, it held, “the trial court’s recital that it considered the ‘evidence and arguments of counsel,’ without any limitation, is an ‘affirmative indication’ that the trial court considered B.C.’s response and the evidence attached to it.” The Court analogized to its longstanding approach when considering late-filed amended pleadings in advance of a summary-judgment hearing. Like the situation here, the rules prohibit amendment of pleadings, without leave, within seven days of a summary-judgment hearing. But “leave of court is presumed when a summary judgment [order] states that all pleadings were considered, and when, as here, the record does not indicate that an amended pleading was not considered, and the opposing party does not show surprise.” So, be careful with “boilerplate” language in proposed orders.

One more thing. You may be thinking: Was B.C.’s filing really late at all? Shouldn’t the filing of B.C.’s response simply have related back to the day before, the deadline day, when she submitted the technically defective e-filing? Unfortunately, that was not standard practice back in 2014 when B.C. attempted her e-filing. And both the Supreme Court and court of appeals ruled B.C. waived that argument because she didn’t assert it until her motion for rehearing en banc in the appeals court.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/33W2SVj
via Abogado Aly Website

Texas Supreme Court Ruling in Spider Bite Case Important for Rural Landowners

Originally published by Tiffany Dowell.

 

The Texas Supreme Court recently issued an opinion in a case involving a spider bite.  That may sound strange, but it is an important case for rural landowners when it comes to liability for injuries caused by wild animals.

Background

Mr. Hillis owns a bed and breakfast in Fredericksburg that he uses mostly for weekend rentals.  He also owns a cabin on the property.  Hillis leased the cabin to Mr. McCall and McCall offered to “open up” the bed and breakfast building for guests and others needing access such as maintenance workers.  On December 12, 2014, McCall went into the bed and breakfast building for Hillis to check the dishwasher and to determine if the sink was leaking.  While doing so, McCall was bitten by a brown recluse spider.

McCall has previously noted spiders in the house and reported this to Hillis.  Hillis, in turn, passed this information along to the housekeeper who prepared the bed and breakfast for guests and she would set off a “bug bomb” to deal with any insects when prepping the bed and breakfast for guests. No guest had ever complained of insects in their reviews of the bed and breakfast.  Neither Hillis nor McCall knew of any brown recluse spiders on the property.

Photo by Sebastian Huxley on Unsplash

Litigation

McCall filed a premises liability suit against Hillis.  McCall argued that the spider was an unreasonably dangerous condition, that Hillis knew or should have known of the spider, that Hillis owed a duty to McCall to warn or make safe the dangerous condition, that Hillis failed to do so, and that McCall suffered damages as a result.

The trial court granted Hillis’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case based on the doctrine of ferae naturae finding that Hillis owed no duty to McCall with respect to wild animals he had neither introduced to nor harbored on the property.  McCall appealed.

The San Antonio Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that “McCall was bitten by a spider in an artificial structure and Hillis knew or should have known of an unreasonable risk of harm posed by spiders inside the bed and breakfast.”  Hillis appealed.

Applicable Law

When someone files suit against a property owner for injury caused by a condition on the land, the available legal claim is premises liability.  The threshold question in any premises liability case is whether the landowner owed a duty to the injured person and, if so, what duty was owed. When the injured party is an invitee (a person entering the property for mutual benefit of themselves and the landowner), the landowner’s duty is to “make safe or warn against any concealed, unreasonably dangerous conditions of which the landowner is, or reasonably should be, aware but the invitee is not.”  The duty does not include warning the invitee of hazards that are open and obvious.

There is, however, an exception to this duty in situations involving wild animals.  The doctrine of ferae naturae provides that “with certain exceptions, a premises owner generally owes no duty to protect invitees from wild animals on the owner’s property.”  In these circumstances, a duty arises only if the landowner either (1) introduced non-indigenous animals to the area or affirmatively attracted the animals to the area; or (2) actually reduced indigenous wild animals to his or her possession or control.

Lastly, there one additional exception to the doctrine of ferae naturae when artificial structures are involved. A landowner can be liable for wild animals found in structures or places where they are not normally found such as stores, hotels, apartments, or billboards, if the landowner knows or should have known of the unreasonable risk of harm posed by the animal on the premises and cannot expect patrons to realize the danger or guard against it. Essentially, this makes the ferae naturae doctrine inapplicable when the wild animals located inside an artificial structure and, instead, the general duty for invitees is applicable.

Texas Supreme Court Opinion

The Texas Supreme Court reversed the San Antonio Court of Appeals decision and dismissed the case. [Read full opinion here.]  Applying the law laid out above to the facts of this case, the Texas Supreme Court held that Hillis owed no duty to McCall.

First, the general, intermittent presence of spiders did not amount to Hillis having knowledge of an unreasonable risk of harm.  Further, he had no reason to know that brown recluses, or any other venomous spiders, were inside his property. Although Hillis knew that brown recluses were indigenous to Texas, he did not know of any on his property or inside the house. Thus, he did not have knowledge of the brown recluse spiders, nor should he have had such knowledge under these facts.

Second, the evidence shows that McCall and Hillis had identical knowledge of the presence of spiders on the property, both knowing that they had been seen inside the bed and breakfast periodically and neither knowing that the spiders present were venomous.  The court stated that, even with regard to animals inside an artificial structure, it will “not impose a duty on a landowner to warn an invitee about something he already knows.”

Based on this, the court reversed the Court of Appeals, and ordered judgment be entered in favor of Hillis.

Key Takaways

First, this case illustrates the concept that a landowner is always at risk for lawsuit if someone is injured on the landowner’s property.  This is why I always advise all landowners to carry liability insurance for all property.  Liability insurance not only provides coverage for injuries falling under the policy terms, but also provides a defense to a landowner if a claim is made.  This means that the insurance company would hire an attorney to represent the landowner in this type of litigation, in the insurance company’s own dime.  This is extremely important and is a step that landowners should not overlook.

Second, landowners should be aware of the duty owed to persons on their property, especially to invitees like Mr. McCall.  A landowner has a duty to warn of unreasonable dangers that the landowner knows of or should know of with a reasonable inspection that would not be obvious to the plaintiff.  Thus, it is prudent to think about any potentially hidden dangerous conditions on one’s property and be sure to warn people about them or make them safe.

Third, landowners should breathe easier knowing that there is generally no liability for wild animals on their property.  Cases have applied this rule in cases involving spiders, snakes, wasps, ants, and scorpions, for example.  Unless one of the exceptions above apply, landowners will generally not be liable for injuries caused by these animals.  That said, however, landowners need to understand this doctrine is likely not applicable where the wild animal injures someone inside of an artificial structure.  As noted above, the general duty would apply in that situation.  Thus, if there are any artificial structures on a landowner’s property, the landowner should be aware that he or she may be liable for wild animals found inside the structure and take proper precautions to ensure such animals are not present or, if they are present, to warn visitors about such animals.

Lastly, for more information on how landowners can protect themselves from liability, please read Chapter 5 of my Owning Your Piece of Texas handbook.  This is an area of the law where there are a number of steps landowners can take to protect themselves before an injury occurs.  Taking some time to study up on this area and take the necessary steps is time very well spent.

 

The post Texas Supreme Court Ruling in Spider Bite Case Important for Rural Landowners appeared first on Texas Agriculture Law.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2QTOVSo
via Abogado Aly Website

How Law Firms Can Use Social Media for Crisis Communications

Originally published by Elizabeth Flake.

On any other seemingly normal workday, law firms use social media to connect with professional connections, existing clients, and local communities on everyday items such as offered services or practice areas, awards or accomplishments, and promoting speaking engagements, among other things. However, in light of ongoing concerns over the novel coronavirus or COVID-19, ensuring these platforms are also being utilized for crisis related communications is more paramount than ever.

The post How Law Firms Can Use Social Media for Crisis Communications appeared first on Stacey E. Burke, P.C..

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2QXbshf
via Abogado Aly Website

Pick a horse

Originally published by David Coale.

The appellants in Trubenbach v. Energy Exploration “urge[d] that ‘context matters.’ They argue that as non-signatories, they can compel Energy Exploration to arbitration but Energy Exploration cannot compel them to arbitration. But this is not a case in which non-signatories first moved to compel arbitration, then later changed their minds, withdrew their consent, and proceeded with the litigation in a judicial forum. Here, appellants urged diametrically opposing positions in two different courts at the same time.” (emphasis in original).

As a result, “[t]heir conduct in claiming rights under the arbitration agreement and their conduct throughout the course of this proceeding clearly reflected their willingness to forego their right to a judicial forum.” No. 05-18-01090-CV (March 27, 2020) (mem. op.). The Court also observed: “Appellants’ actions are akin to behavior prohibited by the invited error doctrine—a party may not complain of an error which the party invited.” (citations omitted).

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2QYeBNF
via Abogado Aly Website

Both parallel and pleasing

Originally published by Wayne Schiess.

Mastering correlative conjunctions

My books: Legal Writing Nerd: Be One, Plain Legal Writing: Do It.

Have you ever given much thought to the pairs of words we use to create parallel constructions that make for pleasing prose? Like this:

  • The argument was not only long but also

and this:

  • Counsel may either agree with or oppose the decision.

The boldface words are called correlative conjunctions, and they come in pairs. Here are the most common:

  • both … and
  • either … or
  • neither … nor
  • not only … but also

Those are the most commonly used correlative conjunctions, but there are others. Some sources add these:

  • if … then
  • just as … so [also]
  • whether … or

Legal-writing expert Bryan Garner lists six more for a total of 13.[1]

Here I’ll focus on the four most common and address two rules professional legal writers follow when using correlative conjunctions.

The most important rule is that the part of speech that follows the first conjunction must also follow the second. That is, if a verb follows the first conjunction in the pair, a verb must follow the second conjunction. So below, A and B must be the same part of speech:

  • both A … and B
  • either A … or B
  • neither A … nor B
  • not only A … but also B

A and B must be syntactically identical: both nouns, both verbs, both prepositions, and so on. Some examples:

Not this:    Many lawyers are not only smart but also think creatively.

  • Smart (adjective) and think (verb) are not the same part of speech.

 But this:    Many lawyers are not only smart but also creative.

  • Smart and creative are both adjectives.

Another example:

Not this:    The court was neither willing to look at the owner’s acts in creating a hazard, nor at the dangers created when customers knocked items onto the floor.

  • The faulty correlative parallelism arises because neither precedes willing (verb) and nor precedes at (preposition).

 But this:    The court was willing neither to look at the owner’s acts in creating a hazard, nor to consider the dangers created when customers knocked items onto the floor.

  • The correlative conjunctions are now parallel: neither to look … nor to consider.

 Or this:     The court was willing to look neither at the owner’s acts in creating a hazard, nor at the dangers created when customers knocked items onto the floor.

  • The correlatives are parallel: neither at … nor at.

On to the second rule. A minor writing error occurs when writers use nor for the second phrase or clause in a sentence that did not begin with a phrase or clause using neither, like this:

  • The Court did not review the pleadings nor discuss the arguments.

That example misuses nor. Why? Bryan Garner says that in these constructions, “or is generally better than nor.” The initial negative—not in our example, “carries through to all the elements ….”[2] So the sentence is preferably written this way:

  • The Court did not review the pleadings or discuss the arguments.

This problem with nor goes away if you break the one sentence into two and are willing to begin with nor:

  • The Court did not review the pleadings. Nor did it discuss the arguments.

One more pointer. Don’t forget that with constructions using or or nor, the verb agrees in number with the nearest subject—the one right before the verb. So in the following examples, the verb check should agree with husband:

Not this:    Every night, either the defendant or her husband check that the store alarm is set.

But this:    Every night, either the defendant or her husband checks that the store alarm is set.

Granted, the rules discussed here are fine points, but professional legal writers follow them because they create parallel structures that are clear and pleasing to read.

My books: Legal Writing Nerd: Be One, Plain Legal Writing: Do It.

[1] Bryan A. Garner, Garner’s Modern English Usage 225 (4th ed. 2016).

[2] Id. at 632.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2UOFVPv
via Abogado Aly Website

10 Safe, Enjoyable Social Distancing Activities

Originally published by Diamond Kelley.

As we work together to contain coronavirus (COVID-19), a major part of our efforts require that we distance ourselves from others to limit transmission. Despite the name Social Distancing, it is important to remember that while we are distanced physically, technology grants us a number of ways to keep in contact with one another and enjoy social activities.

Here are ten ways to have fun form home as you do your part to flatten the curve.

1. FaceTime, Skype, Video Chat Friends and Family

Now is a wonderful time to check up on loved ones across the world or to even revive lost relationships with the help of technology! Especially make time to chat with the elderly, friends who may live alone, or those with anxiety or other mental health problems to make sure they are handling the pandemic in a healthy manner and have necessary items. Facebook Messenger, Zoom, Discord, and Google Duo are several other popular video chat apps to use.

2. Start an Online Book Club and Discussion

With a lot of the strenuous demands for work and school being significantly lower due to remote work taking place, many people may find themselves with extra time to read novels. Challenge your friends to dissect a new book every week or month and have fun discussing its plot or hidden messages together. Plus, there are tons of books with accompanying movies to make the book club even more interesting.

3. Work Out, Perform Yoga, or Do Virtual Zumba Classes

Having a group of friends to work out with remotely will motivate you to achieve your fitness goals. YouTube along with many gyms and fitness sites have plenty of exercise trainings online for you and your friends to schedule each day. The release of endorphins from heart pumping activities can improve your overall mood as well.

4. Enroll in an Online Course

Many universities as well as Coursera, Shaw Academy, and Udemy are offering free courses to enrich personal passions and knowledge. Take this time at home to study something that truly intrigues you and share what you’ve learned with your friends and family. You can even create small presentations along with your friends and take turns presenting them to one another in your own remote university.

5. Cook A New Dish

If there’s a new meal prep plan you’ve been meaning to try for weeks, now is your chance. Encourage loved ones to try new diets or desserts with you. Even have cooking competitions like the pros on TV (judging presentation of course) can help to spice things up even further.

6. Remote Wine Time or Beer Cheers

If you miss spending time at the bar with your buds, all is not lost. The internet has many creative happy hour drinking activities for those of responsible, legal ages to partake in. A remote happy hour here and there with people you care about may prove to be a lot more enjoyable than you think.

7. Virtual Museum Tours

The Smithsonian Museum of American History, National Museum of African American History and Culture, and U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum are among the many museums offering virtual tours of their exhibits. Feel free to gather indoor family, especially curious children and elderly, around to take a peak at amazing, historical works.

8. Binge and Learn from YouTubers

While it isn’t quite set in stone when daily lives will return back to normal, one thing can be for sure. You can learn something new. From aquatic landscaping and aquaponics to fluently speaking a new language, there are thousands of helpful YouTube channels dedicated to helping you grow your skills.

9. Remote Game Nights

Even though all of the public, social outings have been pushed back until further notice, this doesn’t mean you can’t meet up with a bunch of friends in a virtual park or beach. Video games with huge multiplayer servers are practically everywhere. Whether you have a PS4 or an android phone, as long as you have an internet connection you can chat with friends across the globe on a mic all the while embarking on all sorts of fantastic adventures.

10. Virtual Movie Streaming Night (Netflix Edition)

Netflix has recently added a new feature called ‘Netflix Party’ to encourage social distancing. With it you and a group of people can watch movies and shows together, comment in a group chat, and even take breaks throughout the movie with synchronized pausing. If Netflix isn’t your thing, there are ways to screen share movies or even FaceTime while watching a video together.

Being ‘stuck’ indoors doesn’t have to be a boring problem. With a little bit of imagination, creativity, and enthusiasm the exciting indoor possibilities are endless.

Thomas J. Henry Law Remains Available

Even as we deal with COVID-19, accidents and injuries are still going to occur and people will still need access to experienced personal injury attorneys. Thomas J. Henry Law remains ready, and you are still able to speak with an attorney if you have been injured. Our attorneys are available 24/7, nights and weekends.

If you have been injured in an accident and have questions concerning your options, or if you have any doubt that your current attorney will be able to properly represent you during COVID-19, call Thomas J. Henry immediately for a FREE case review.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/39rRPnJ
via Abogado Aly Website

Law Library of Congress: Ask a Librarian is Available!

Originally published by Legal Writing Prof.

The website for the Law Library of Congress includes a feature called “Ask a Librarian.” It’s free, it’s available to law professors, law students, and other researchers all around the globe. And it’s open, even if the Law Library itself…

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/39pNvpa
via Abogado Aly Website

What goes into an award of spousal support here in Texas?

Originally published by On behalf of Laura Dale.

Very few people come out of a divorce without some financial impact. Any time the same income must stretch over two households instead of one, both parties will experience some adjustments to their finances.

What the courts want to make sure of is that one of you doesn’t experience a significant drop in income while the other party receives an unfair financial advantage. Under these circumstances, spousal support may be appropriate.

How do the courts come up with the amount needed?

Of course, the first hurdle for anyone requesting spousal support is to prove a need exists. After you show that you do not earn enough to support yourself without help, the court will then assess how much you need in order to make up for the difference between what you bring in and what you need for support. Below are generalities regarding what the law says about amount and how long you will receive spousal support:

  • You could receive either up to 20% of your former spouse’s gross income or $5,000, whichever is less.
  • If you or one of your children who resides primarily with you has a disability, you could receive spousal support indefinitely since your need may not end.
  • If you were married for at least 30 years, you could receive alimony for up to 10 years.
  • If you were married between 20 and 30 years, your alimony will more than likely end after a maximum of seven years.
  • If your marriage lasted between 10 and 20 years, you may receive spousal support for up to five years.
  • If your spouse was abusive and you were married less than 10 years, you could receive alimony for no more than five years.

Within the confines of these limits, you and your future former spouse may not agree on duration and amount. If that happens, you will need to present evidence to the court to support your position, whether you are the one needing spousal support or the one who may end up paying it.

You don’t have to go it alone

Nothing less than your financial future is at stake regardless of which side of the issue you are on, so it would be wise to enlist some experienced legal assistance for help. An attorney knowledgeable in Texas law will provide you with an understanding of your rights and an explanation of what you face, along with your legal options.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/3bBO7JN
via Abogado Aly Website

Coronavirus Legal News Briefing (3.30.20)

Originally published by Amy Starnes.

Editor’s Note: The State Bar of Texas is providing this collection of important links, blog posts, and media stories to keep its members and the public informed of the latest news and resources related to the novel coronavirus outbreak and its impact on the legal community.

Important links

 

State Bar coronavirus update: travel authorization for lawyers, Zoom resources, and free CLE — State Bar of Texas President Randy Sorrels and Executive Director Trey Apffel sent the following message to members on Friday. — Texas Bar Blog

Judicial Branch posts YouTube channel directory — The Texas Judicial Branch published a YouTube channel directory listing of courts convening via Zoom. — Texas Bar Blog

Law firms and bar associations provide resources for coronavirus and opportunities to help — Law firms and bar associations across the state are coming together to provide up-to-date information about COVID-19 and to provide help for those affected by the pandemic. — Texas Bar Blog

Billable hour expectations remain the same, though work volume is ‘trending lower,’ survey says — Ninety-six percent of lawyers and legal staff members who responded to an online survey said their workplaces had announced a move to remote work by March 24. — ABA Journal

Texas to require 14-day quarantine for all travelers from Louisiana, add same restrictions for fliers from other hot spots — Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Miami, California and Washington state also join the 14-day quarantine list. — The Dallas Morning News

As local officials shrink jail populations due to coronavirus, Abbott blocks release of some inmates who can’t pay bail — Abbott’s order bans release without paying bail for inmates who are accused of or have been convicted in the past of violent offenses. Defendants with cash could still walk free. — The Texas Tribune

Virus could spur avalanche of tort and employment litigation — The insurance industry is bracing for a tidal wave of claims related to the Covid-19 outbreak, and experts say the new viral disease puts claimants — and the industry — in uncharted waters. — Courthouse News Service

Pro bono lawyers face new world of remote work due to virus — The coronavirus pandemic is upending how attorneys routinely interact with pro bono clients, making it rare or impossible to meet face-to-face in legal clinics, courtrooms, and prisons. — Bloomberg Law

For Big Law, is COVID-19 the great recession all over again? (podcast) — Keith Wetmore, former chairman at Morrison & Foerster, and Bill Brandt, who has helped handle workouts and restructurings for nearly 40 law firms, had big roles during the 2008 recession. Here’s their perspective on the major challenges law firms are facing now. — Law.com

Cybersecurity lawyer who flagged the WHO hack warns of ‘massive’ remote work risks (audio) — Cybersecurity experts warn that those remote setups invite new hacking risks. — NPR

Decision about releasing July bar exam materials will come in May, NCBE says — The National Conference of Bar Examiners, which develops and produces the attorney licensing tests used by most U.S. jurisdictions, will announce in early May whether its tests will be released for the July bar exam. — ABA Journal

Commentary: Execution of legal documents and COVID-19 — With the COVID-19 Virus and Emergency Orders in place, one might ask, “Is there a provision for relaxing the requirement that documents be executed before a Notary Public?” — The Huntsville Item

Austin company looking to dock paychecks for those receiving stimulus checks (video) — Austin labor attorney Austin Kaplan said he believes the company would be in violation of that law if it docked some paychecks to the amount described in the agreement. — KXAN – Austin

The stimulus check won’t be in the mail for Americans who owe child support (video) — But back taxes or late student loan payments don’t disqualify people from getting the full amount they’re eligible for. — NBC News

Out of sight, child abuse in Texas thought to be on the rise — Families are stuck at home, confronting stress and fear. And with many schools and day care centers shuttered, child welfare workers can’t rely on teachers to help detect abuse. — The Texas Tribune

The novel coronavirus is leaving foster children with nowhere to go — The foster care system, built on frequent movements of children from one home to another and regular in-person supervision, has been especially wracked with confusion and dread by the coronavirus crisis. — ABA Journal

Evictions in Texas are halted, but what happens to renters when the suspension lifts? — Most states give tenants the right to make good on missed rent payments before an eviction court date, but that’s a protection Texans don’t have, Texas Tenants’ Union Executive Director Sandy Rollins said. — The Dallas Morning News

Texas’ Attorney General says cities and counties can’t restrict gun sales under emergency orders — Gun sales can continue even as cities and counties curb nonessential business in light of COVID-19, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said. — Houston Public Media

Subscribe

To keep up on the latest legal news from around the state, sign up for the State Bar of Texas’ Daily News Briefing by clicking here.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2UMETnf
via Abogado Aly Website

Friday, March 27, 2020

Top 10 from Texas Bar Today: En banc, Interlocutory, and Testamentary

Originally published by Joanna Herzik.

To highlight some of the posts that stand out from the crowd, the editors of Texas Bar Today have created a list from the week’s blog posts of the top ten based on subject matter, writing style, headline, and imagery. We hope you enjoy this installment.

10. En banc court reverses no-evidence MSJDavid Coale @600camp of Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, LLP in Dallas

9. Are Workers’ Compensation Settlements Taxable in Texas?Aaron Herbert @dallaspilawyer of The Law Firm of Aaron A. Herbert, P.C. in Dallas

8. Royalty Owners’ Rights in BankruptcyJohn McFarland @TXOilGasLawPro of Graves Dougherty Hearon & Moody in Austin

7. COVID-19: EPA Enforcement Discretion PolicyKevin Collins of Bracewell LLP @BracewellEnergy in Austin

6. Working Remotely: Tips For Social Media MarketersAmanda Ravandi of Stacey E. Burke, P.C. @StaceyEBurke in Houston

5. Does COVID-19 Make a Contract Impossible to Perform?Cleve Clinton and Bill Drabbleof Gray Reed & McGraw @GrayReedLaw in Dallas

4. When a Pandemic Leads to Breach of Contract: What Are Your Defenses?Jim Chester of Klemchuk LLP @K_LLP in Dallas

3. Small Businesses and Bankruptcy in a Time of PandemicAlex R. Hernandez Jr. @AlexHernandezJr of Alex R. Hernandez Jr. PLLC in Port Lavaca

2. Case Illustrates Law Regarding Challenge to Testamentary CapacityTiffany Dowell Lashmet @TiffDowell, Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist in Agricultural Law with Texas A&M Agrilife Extension in College Station

1. Why Wait To Appeal? Texas Has A Permissive Appeal Statute That Allows Parties To Appeal Interlocutory Orders If Certain Conditions ExistDavid Fowler Johnson @TXFiduciaryLit of Winstead PC in Fort Worth

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2QNBmUn
via Abogado Aly Website