Posts Tagged ‘Texas’

Texas taverns, cont’d

According to State Sen. John Whitmire (D-Houston), the new program to arrest intoxicated Texans in bars whether or not they show any inclination to drive (see Mar. 23) is justified because it nips in the bud potential future misconduct: “Even though a public drunk is not planning on driving, that could change in an instant,” he said. “There is certainly potential danger.” (Pete Slover, “Lawmakers to review bar busts”, Dallas Morning News, Mar. 25). Glenn Reynolds reacts disrespectfully (Mar. 31).

Don’t Mess with Texas Morals Police: Tavern Patrons Arrested for Intoxication

“Texas has begun sending undercover agents into bars to arrest drinkers for being drunk, a spokeswoman for the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission said,” according to Reuters. Public intoxication is illegal in Texas, and the authorities contend that their preemptive arrests will prevent people from driving drunk or committing other offenses. HT Peaktalk. More: Mar. 31.

El Defenzor on the Watts Law Firm

El Defenzor, a Corpus Christi paper of questionable credibility, claims to have uncovered e-mails among the plaintiffs’ bar in that town hand-picking judges for the bench at election time. Unfortunately, this germ of an interesting story is buried in bad punctuation and a deranged-sounding ungrammatical writing style that is consistent with what a commenter here calls “tinfoil hat-wearing.” But the quoted e-mails themselves have indicia of genuineness (including accurate e-mail addresses and corrections of typos in the title line in later iterations), and some of the other allegations in the story are consistent with stories that we have reported from the San Antonio Express-News and a newspaper-destruction scheme we documented in another Watts case. It’s also consistent with the reports filed with the Texas Ethics Commission; witness the disclosures by the front group “Good Government PAC,” which has the same address and office number as the Watts Law Firm.

Imagine what a credible journalist could do with this story! Sixty Minutes? Houston Press? Dallas Observer? Corpus Christi Caller-Times? Texas Monthly? Anyone out there?

“Waco crash verdict stuns bus industry”

The verdict that Ted reported on Dec. 1 is stirring unease through the bus industry. Lawyers convinced a Texas jury that a tour bus was defectively designed because it did not come equipped with seat belts and laminated side window glass, even though neither are common in American tour bus design or mandated by the federal National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (Steve McGonigle, Dallas Morning News, Feb. 12). For more on the laminated glass issue, see May 16, 2005 and links from there.

Update: Dallas Observer doesn’t owe $1 billion

We reported on the story in September 2004:

“Joe Doe”, the HIV+ plaintiff in a Texas state lawsuit, is a member of the choral group “Positive Voices”—which has produced a CD with his photo and his real name. Nevertheless, when the alternative weekly Dallas Observer also identified “Doe” as HIV+ in passing in a larger December 4 story about a gay congregation titled “Fallen Angel,” “Doe” sued. The suit doesn’t allege that the Observer got its facts wrong, but argues that the story violates a Texas law prohibiting the disclosure of “medical test results,” with a fine of up to $10,000 for each disclosure. Since the Observer has circulation of 110,000, “Doe” figures he’s entitled to over a billion dollars.

Positive Voices is a group that advertises itself as consisting of HIV+ members. A Texas state court of appeals reversed the decision of the trial court not to grant summary judgment, and entered judgment for the defendants. (John Council, “Texas Appeals Court Sides With Newspaper in $1 Billion Suit Over HIV Disclosure”, Texas Lawyer, Feb. 13; New Times Inc., et al. v. John Doe., No. 05-05-00705-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 24, 2006)).

The decision was limited to the facts of the case, however, and the state statute remains overbroad, and could easily be construed by future courts to apply to the media. Or even personal-dating websites: a strict interpretation of the statute, HSC § 81.103, would create a cause of action for a plaintiff who posts “I have tested negative for HIV” on a website that screens essays against that website. And the statute is conceivably even broader, given its definition of “test result”:

“Test result” means any statement that indicates
that an identifiable individual has or has not been tested for AIDS
or HIV infection, antibodies to HIV, or infection with any other
probable causative agent of AIDS, including a statement or
assertion that the individual is positive, negative, at risk, or
has or does not have a certain level of antigen or antibody.

“Man glued to toilet seat sticks to story”

“A man who sued Home Depot claiming that a prank left him glued to a restroom toilet seat has passed a lie detector test, a newspaper reported.” After Bob Dougherty made headlines with his allegations that employees of the home improvement chain failed to respond to his calls for help, “Ron Trzepacz, former director of operations in Nederland, where Dougherty lives, said that Dougherty claimed in 2004 that he was glued to a toilet seat in the town’s visitor center but pulled himself free.” However, Dougherty said he knew nothing of Trzepacz or of such an incident and offered to take the polygraph test, which was arranged by a local television station. (AP/CNN, Nov. 11). Amid the numerous puzzling aspects of the case, one aspect is reassuringly familiar, namely that it’s Not About the Money (see Nov. 7, etc.) “It’s not about the money. I want my health back. I want to be back to normal,’ Dougherty said. ‘I want to make sure this doesn’t happen to anybody ever, ever again.'” His lawsuit asks $3 million for pain, humiliation and other losses. (AP/CNN, “Man glued to toilet may have history”, Nov. 8). Possibly the most groanworthy headline, of several candidates, was the Dallas Morning News’s: “Toilet allegation: Was it stunt No. 2?” (Nov. 8).

Balloting results

In Washington state, voters defeated I-330, a doctor-backed plan to limit medical malpractice awards and lawyers’ fees, by about a 54-46 margin, while also drubbing I-336. a lawyer-backed alternative (Seattle P-I, Seattle Times). California voters trounced, by a 61-39 margin, Proposition 79, which would have regulated drug prices via freelance lawsuits among other means; they defeated Proposition 78, a drug-industry-backed alternative, by nearly as wide a margin. (L.A. Times, Sacramento Bee). In Virginia, former Richmond mayor and Democrat Tim Kaine, who had been criticized by the American Justice Partnership (Nov. 2), won the governorship anyway (Wash. Post). Texas voters easily passed an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment that Houston attorney Warren Cole, chairman of the State Bar of Texas’ family law section, called “horribly drafted” and which would prohibit the recognition of any “legal status” that is “similar to marriage” (more from Cathy Young)(see yesterday’s post) (Dallas Morning News) (cross-posted at Point of Law).

Student: dorm’s ferret ban violates ADA

At Our Lady of the Lake University in San Antonio, 19-year-old freshman Sarah Sevick has filed a complaint with the U.S. Justice Department saying her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act were violated by the dorm’s ban on her pet ferret, which she says she needs at hand to calm her during panic attacks related to a physical disability. (“Disabilities complaint filed after ferret banned from dorm”, AP/Houston Chronicle, Oct. 14). For more on claims to accommodation of companion animals under disabled-rights law, see May 5, etc.

Racial discrimination in jury selection

A Dallas Morning News investigation documents the degree to which it’s been second nature to lawyers on both sides in Texas criminal trials to exclude on the basis of race. Among highlights: the unique “Texas shuffle” technique used to give lawyers an advance peek at the race of prospective panelists; and the taxpayer-funded database that allows prosecutors to identify persons who have previously served on juries in cases which ended in acquittals, so as to keep those persons off future panels. (“Striking differences”, 2005 series (reg))(via Mike Cernovich).