judges Archives

New Mexico commission recommends paying district court judges $209,922

SANTA FE, N.M. (KRQE) – New Mexico’s justice system relies on judges to oversee trials around the state. But experts are telling lawmakers that New Mexico’s district judges aren’t getting paid enough.

The Judicial Compensation Commission was created in 2005 as an independent group to make recommendations on judge pay. In their 2023 report, the commission says the state should up district court pay to over $200,000.

The commission says a pay boost of about $37,000 per year would help bring more diverse and experienced lawyers to the job that’s crucial for the state’s court system.

“Pay is a significant factor having an impact on the diversity of candidates who seek judicial
office,” the commission wrote in their report. “Candidates with only criminal law experience have a steep learning curve when serving in districts where judges hear a diverse range of civil, family, juvenile, and criminal cases. The adverse effect of inadequate judicial salaries in reducing the scope and experience of judicial applicants is acute in New Mexico and is a problem recognized throughout the nation.”

To raise district court judge pay, the state would also have to raise pay for the New Mexico Supreme Court Justices. Right now, pay for both state supreme court justices and district judges ranked below average compared to district judge (or general jurisdiction judge) pay across the U.S. Illinois pays the highest, offering over $234,000 while West Virginia only pays $138,600 according to data from the National Center for State Courts.

In a Courts, Corrections & Justice Committee meeting on October 25, several lawmakers discussed the issue of judicial pay. Lawmakers generally seemed supportive of putting more money towards the state’s justice system, but the idea of increased funding has to be presented in the state budget during next year’s lawmaking session. The commission says the pay raise would cost the state about $6.05 million each year, plus some extra to keep up with inflation.

Texas judges must retire at age 75. Voters could give them four more years on the bench

State judges in Texas are on average in their late 50s. But several prominent Texas judges would benefit immediately from the age change, according to a Hearst analysis.

That includes Hecht, who would regain a couple years of service left on his six-year term. Hecht declined to comment, and a court spokesperson said he was “not involved in the bill or consulted in any way on it.”

Five other high appellate court justices will turn 75 in their next term, if reelected: Texas Supreme Court Justice Debra Lehrmann and Court of Criminal Appeals Justices Sharon Keller, Barbara Hervey, Bert Richardson and Scott Walker. Keller and Hervey are up for reelection next year.

The proposed age change, which will go before voters in the Nov. 7 election, already has prompted at least one judge to reassess his plans.

Judge Doug Woodburn, who is 74 and serves in the 108th District in Amarillo, said he was planning his retirement when a lawyer came by his office and let him know that Proposition 13 would be on the ballot. The news made him “rethink” his long-term plan, and he decided that he wanted to stay to continue clearing up the overload of criminal cases in his county.

Woodburn already has begun fundraising and preparing to run for another term on the chance the proposal passes. He added that he thought 79 was an appropriate cap.

“Things have changed,” he said “People live longer now. People stay healthy and are more capable now than they might have been many years ago when that constitutional provision was originally written. We do a lot better than we used to.”

Woodburn said there are safeguards in place to prevent a judge from staying on the bench for longer than they’re physically or mentally able, he said. Judges must go before voters every four to six years and face oversight from a judicial conduct commission.

“I think if a judge is losing it, if they’re in a position where they’re really not competent any longer, I think that word gets out pretty quick,” he said.

Of the 32 states that set mandatory retirement limits, just over half set their cutoff at 70, according to the National Center for State Courts. Eight states, including Texas, set theirs at 75; Vermont is at 90; and the remainder plus the District of Columbia’s range from 72 to 74. Eighteen states have no caps.

In Texas, state district judges who turn 75 during their four-year term can finish it out, while appellate judges who turn 75 midterm can stay until Dec. 31 of the fourth year of their six-year terms.

Proponents of age limits say they create opportunities for younger, more diverse judicial candidates to run for office.

“The Judiciary has garnered more authority than our Founders had ever anticipated,” said Rep. Steve Toth, a Republican from The Woodlands who was one of a handful of state lawmakers to vote against raising the retirement age. “Turnover is a good thing in government, especially in the Judiciary.”

Bill Raftery, a senior analyst with the National Center for State Courts, said states have been increasingly considering measures that would raise judicial mandatory retirement ages, but they have tended to be unsuccessful. Raftery was unsure of the reason since the measures typically don’t attract major political interest or funding on either side.

“I think there’s a sense that nobody wants to give any elected official any more time in office,” Raftery said. “You see that when there are pushes to expand legislative terms from four years to six, once you lift term limits for legislators and others — generally speaking, adding terms, years for any elected official usually doesn’t work.”

Texas’ proposed amendment sailed through the state Legislature with virtually no opposition.

Jack Walker, vice president of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, invoked Alexander Hamilton when speaking in support of the proposition at a Texas House committee hearing earlier this year.

In Federalist Paper 79, the founding father wrote in opposition to his home state of New York’s judicial retirement age of 60 years old. He called concerns about aging judges working beyond their ability an “imaginary danger.” Walker agreed and said there are “good reasons not to force retirement” on judges.

“We will likely be losing some great jurists with decades of experience and stable judgment,” Walker said. “We also have the benefit of electing our judges in Texas, thus any instability issues with a particular judge can be taken care of by our electorate.”

State Rep. Cody Vasut, R-Angleton, has unsuccessfully pushed in the last two sessions to remove the limits altogether.

The considerations during the Revolutionary period are much different than those of today, Raftery said. At the time, aside from impeachment or, in the states that hold them, elections, there was no other recourse for removing an incompetent judge.

Now, he said there are judicial oversight agencies, such as Texas’ State Commission on Judicial Conduct, which handles complaints and doles out sanctions.

No one spoke against the Texas proposition during public hearings or legislative debate this year. Contacted by Hearst Newspapers, neither the Mexican American Legislative Caucus nor the Texas Legislative Black Caucus took an official stance.

Texas’ judicial population is predominantly white. Sixty-five percent of district judges and 71 percent of appellate judges are white, according to the most recent data released in September.

The average ages of the Texas Supreme Court, the state’s highest civil court; the Court of Criminal Appeals, the state’s highest criminal court; and the intermediate state appellate courts judges are 59, 59 and 54, respectively. The average age of state district judges and criminal district judges is 54 and 60.

Eva Guzman, 60, a former Texas Supreme Court justice who supports the proposition, said that many judges don’t stay on the bench past 70, well before reaching the current retirement age.

“I think the system works,” she said. “I think it strikes the right balance. If you look at the things critical to a strong justice system, you want stability, you want expertise, you want experience, and then most importantly, you want judicial independence.”

Guzman, who left the bench to run against Attorney General Ken Paxton in the 2022 Republican primary, said she hasn’t ruled out a future campaign in some yet-to-be-determined office. She noted that many Texas state officials and lawmakers commonly run well into their 70s these days.

“I’m a youngster,” Guzman joked.

Texas judicial misconduct panel is becoming less transparent

Private sanctions are more common than public ones.

Judges ultimately answer to the voters. But let’s face it, most voters pick along party lines when selecting these important public officials in what are normally down-ballot races. They often have no idea if the judges are qualified or how they’re behaving when elected.

That’s why the work of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, which handles complaints about judges statewide, is so vitally important. And it’s why we’re concerned about a troubling trend by the panel recently to be more private than public in naming the judges it disciplines for misconduct.

Take the case of Dallas County Court at Law No. 1 Judge D’Metria Benson, who received a private sanction from the commission in May.

The commission reported the sanction but didn’t name Benson. We wouldn’t have known the specifics if we hadn’t learned about it independently.

Here are the details: Benson’s sanction stemmed from a complaint filed by prominent Dallas lawyer Les Weisbrod in connection with her handling of a medical malpractice case in 2021 and 2022.

Weisbrod filed a complaint alleging that Benson showed bias and prejudice in the case, had improper ex parte communications and failed to act promptly on several matters, including a motion to recuse herself. He provided us a May 16 letter from the commission confirming that it had voted to privately sanction her, but stating “the details of which we are not authorized to disclose.”

Benson, who was first elected in 2006 and has won re-election every four years since, declined our request for an interview. But this is just the most recent concern that we have had about her. And we’re not alone. She consistently draws low marks in the Dallas Bar Association’s biennial judicial evaluation poll. In 2021, 79% of respondents said her overall performance needed improvement.

But even more troubling than Benson’s behavior is the commission’s trend to protect judges like her by not naming them.

According to the commission’s fiscal 2022 annual report, the agency issued more than double the number of public sanctions, 56, than private ones, 27, in fiscal year 2021. Last year the number of public sanctions was only slightly higher than private sanctions, 40 vs. 38.

These sanctions do not include orders of suspension for judges which are a higher category of discipline and are always public.

This year’s statistics are even more troubling. Although the commission’s 2023 report has not yet been published, it has reported on its website just nine public but 20 private sanctions in fiscal 2023.

“Private reprimands do not serve the public well and hide incompetent judges from being held accountable,” Weisbrod tells us. “Voters, litigants and even other judges should have the right to be informed what the judge has done wrong.”

We wholeheartedly agree.

Commission executive director Jacqueline Habersham said she could not comment on what criteria it uses in issuing private sanctions instead of private ones. But more transparency in judicial disciplinary actions is necessary. We urge the panel to take that into account in issuing its decisions.

Small business, community leaders laud new laws reforming civil justice system

AUSTIN – Four bills passed by the Texas Legislature this spring and signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott take effect on Sept. 1, strengthening the state’s civil justice system, say tort reform groups.

Texans Against Lawsuit Abuse and Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse groups from across the state are currently raising awareness about the new laws and the benefits for Texans.

“Smart-minded lawsuit reforms are widely credited with helping to create and retain jobs, and new laws passed during this year’s regular legislative session will further improve our civil justice system,” said Robert Wood, spokesperson for TALA.

“The Texas Legislature also ensured those performing their civic duty by serving on juries are better compensated for their time.”

The new laws that take effect Sept. 1 will:

– Increase judicial training and transparency (HB 2384) by:

– Requiring a judicial candidate’s ballot application to include the candidate’s bar number and disclosure of any public sanction, censure or disciplinary sanctions in Texas or another state.

– Ensuring a judicial candidate clearly states, for a previous five-year period, the nature of the candidate’s practice, any legal specialization, the candidate’s professional courtroom experience and any final conviction for a Class A or Class B misdemeanor in the past 10 years. Candidates for appellate court seats would go a step further, describing appellate court briefs and oral arguments for the past five years.

– Directing the Texas Supreme Court to adopt rules on judicial training required of judges and set a one-year timeframe for completion. New judges would be required to complete a minimum of 30 hours of instruction on the administrative duties of the office and substantive, procedural and evidentiary law, with an additional 16 hours of continuing education annually. The measure also establishes a process and action to hold these candidates and judges accountable should they fail to complete the required disclosures and training.

“We all want our judges to demonstrate the highest level of skill and competence,” said Daniel Silva, executive director of Rio Grande Valley CALA. “This new law (HB 2384) brings uniformity and accountability to our courts and greater transparency for voters who elect Texas judges.”

– Help ensure fair access to our courts (HB 19 and SB 1045) with the creation of a specialized business court and specialized appeals court in Texas, providing the type of consistency and clarity in large commercial cases that could help deliver faster resolution to lawsuits with fewer litigation costs. A new intermediate appellate court to hear appeals from the new specialized business court and appeals involving the State of Texas will further strengthen our civil justice system.

“These new business courts will help ensure business-to-business cases and board governance matters receive the expertise of specialized judges to hear these complex cases,” said Roger Borgelt, board chair of CALA of Central Texas. “These new courts will also help ensure Texans continue to have access to courts for cases of personal injury, wrongful death, family law and other non-business matters.”

– Boost juror pay (HB 3474) to $20 for the first day of service, up from $6. If selected for a jury, pay increases to $58 per day. The state will increase its reimbursement to counties to partially cover the pay boost.

Previous research from TALA shows that while many Texans say it’s important to serve on a jury, many still don’t respond when summoned, which may be attributable to the financial burden.

“Serving on a jury is fundamental to our democracy, and we are hopeful this new pay boost will encourage more of us to respond when called for jury service,” Wood said.

“We know lawsuit reform works, and these new laws are further evidence that state leaders value a civil justice system that is fair, accessible and focused on jobs, not lawsuits,” said D’Anne Buquet, trustee of Bay Area CALA in Corpus Christi.

Biased judges in climate lawsuits threaten integrity of the court system

The American legal system depends on judges who are impartial, serving as unbiased arbiters with no predisposition to any litigant. This impartiality is the bedrock of a just court system that not only ensures the fair application of the law but gives the public confidence in our justice system .

Unfortunately, judges in Hawaii and Rhode Island who are overseeing municipal and state climate litigation have failed in their mission to be neutral and impartial referees. Allowing their bias to continue influencing the cases before they’ve been heard does not reflect the spirit of our justice system and will likely erode the public’s trust.

These aren’t run-of-the-mill cases, but landmark lawsuits with far-reaching implications that attempt to make certain energy producers liable for globally occurring climate impacts. So far, the flimsy legal foundation of some of these cases, which have been filed from coast to coast, has been rejected by federal court judges. After all, it’s impossible to connect a particular climate impact to a specific group of companies.

With a biased judge, however, this trend could change.

This is the case in Rhode Island, where the judge overseeing the state’s climate lawsuit against energy producers is showing signs of clear bias . In a recent jurisdictional discovery order, a Rhode Island Superior Court judge cited news articles about last year’s United Nations climate conference and cited remarks about liability by climate activists and former Vice President Al Gore. The judge even wrongly compared Rhode Island’s experience with climate change with African countries such as the Seychelles and Kenya, both of which are seeking climate-related damages at the U.N. The insertion by the judge of these external sources, none of which were part of the case record, raises serious questions about his court’s impartiality.

The specter of judicial bias in Hawaii is arguably even greater. Remarkably, the chief justice of the Hawaii Supreme Court, who is slated to review climate-related claims in Honolulu, has actively led legal education panel discussions that ardently support climate litigation. Recently disclosed public recordsrevealed that the chief justice in question worked with the D.C.-based Environmental Law Institute and its Climate Judiciary Project to lead at least four seminars on climate litigation. These include an April 4 course entitled “Rising Seas and Litigation: What Judges Need to Know About Warming-Driven Sea Level Rise” and a June 20 event entitled “Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Disputes: The Use of Special Masters in Resolving Complex Litigation.”

Similarly, a Hawaii Supreme Court associate justice also participated in a 2020 Climate Judiciary Project seminar on climate litigation and has demonstrated there is no daylight between his personal and legal opinions. In a March rulingthat Hawaii citizens have a right to a “life-sustaining climate system,” the associate justice wrote a concurring opinion noting we are facing a “climate emergency” that puts the “lives of our children and future generations … at stake.”

If their personal zeal for climate litigation weren’t enough, the groups associated with these events have clear ties to climate lawsuits. In 2020, the Hewlett Foundation contributed $500,000 to ELI to support “a body of law supporting climate action” and the MacArthur Foundation has given ELI close to $4 million. Investigative reporting has unearthed that both the MacArthur and Hewlett foundations have contributed more than $4 million to entities funding the climate lawsuits.

The bias being revealed in both Rhode Island and Hawaii raise serious concerns about the potential erosion of judicial impartiality and objectivity. The judges in these cases are supposed to exercise restraint and maintain strict impartiality. They aren’t supposed to conduct their own fact-finding inquiries, as the Superior Court judge has done in the Rhode Island climate case. They aren’t supposed to oversee the kind of cases they have encouraged in seminars funded by climate lawsuit activists.

When the blindfold of Lady Justice is lifted and the scales of justice tipped, as they appear to have done in Rhode Island and Hawaii, the public should rightfully be concerned. Climate change lawsuits are distractions from the kind of practical solutions and sound policymaking that will make a difference in our future. Lawsuits could gain traction in the courts if biased judges are allowed to oversee such cases.

Situations unfolding in Rhode Island and Hawaii threaten the public’s confidence in impartial justice and should be remedied before they do real damage.

J.W. Verret is an associate professor at George Mason University Law School.

Here’s why more than 60% of Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in Delaware

Delaware is the second-smallest state in the U.S. But it’s home to more than 60% of Fortune 500 companies, the state says, including Google parent company Alphabet, Amazon, CVS Health, and CNBC parent company Comcast.

“[Delaware] has a lot of appeal for basically three main reasons: convenience, flexibility and predictability,” Roey Gilberg, corporate counsel for LegalZoom, told CNBC.

One of Delaware’s major advantages is its Court of Chancery, which is a separate court system specifically for handling corporate cases.

The court is “widely respected as an authority on business matters trusted by both business and legal communities, honestly, all over the world, as a place where the rules are well developed,” Gilberg said.

The predictable case law also gives investors peace of mind. More than 90% of U.S.-based companies that went public in 2021 were registered in Delaware, according to the state.

Delaware law is also attractive to many small businesses.

Cleanster.com, a platform for finding cleaning services for homes and short-term rentals, is incorporated in Delaware despite both co-founders being based in Montreal, Canada.

“When you want to go global and you’ve incorporated in Canada, no one is going to look at you at all,” said Cleanster.com co-founder and CEO Gloria Oppong. “Delaware protects both ourselves, the entrepreneurs, and also the investors eventually that are going to be joining on.”

In addition to the attractive court system, Delaware provides some tax incentives for businesses, but saving on taxes may not be enough of an incentive for small businesses to incorporate in Delaware.

“It’s a misnomer that Delaware is a tax haven for corporations,” said Gigi Tewari, assistant professor at Widener University Delaware Law School. “So many people believe that, I should incorporate my business in Delaware because I’m going to save so much on corporate tax. Actually, Delaware is on the higher end for corporate tax.”

Do Texas businesses deserve their own court system? A new bill could create one.

Under HB 19, courts would have juries, but judges would be appointed, not elected.

DALLAS — Texas is home to millions and millions of small businesses.

But they’ve never had their own court system in our state to resolve disputes.

That is expected to change this legislative session.

“Business loves predictability because they will know what’s going to happen if we get into this problem,” business attorney Jason Villalba said on Y’all-itics. “And some states are friendly towards business, some states are less friendly towards business. Texas is agnostic because Texas doesn’t have a business system.”

Jason Villalba is not only a practicing business attorney; he’s also a former Republican state representative who first introduced legislation to establish business courts back in 2015.

Villalba says Delaware is currently the state of choice for business disputes.

That state first established its business court system in the 18th century.

And Delaware, with a population of less than one million, is the state of incorporation for some of the country’s largest firms, from American Airlines to Goldman Sachs.

“It’s because Delaware has the oldest, the most established, court system that focuses on disputes between business companies. They decided way back in the 1700s that that was going to be their area. They set up a court and they decided we’re only going to focus on business issues,” Villalba explained.

Many Texas lawmakers now want the same for our state and HB 19 would do just that.

Even the bill’s number tells you all you need to know about its importance. A bill that’s numbered 1 – 20 is a top priority bill for the state of Texas during that session.

Dozens of states now have a court system established for businesses.

Here in Texas, Villalba points out we do have some specialized courts that focus on certain areas of the law, such as probate law or family law.

But business disputes currently wind their way through regular courts in Texas.

“Our judges are smart. They’re capable. They’re effective. And they know what they’re doing. But what ends up happening is all of the business matters and disputes are in the same courts as the person that got run over by a truck,” Villalba told us. “Our courts are so overcrowded that it’s taking months, if not years, to have these disputes settled.”

When these cases do get before a court, Villalba says the judge and juries have to do a great deal of research to get up to speed on what can be very complex business issues.

And that gets expensive.

Supporters of a business court system in Texas say cutting costs is another goal.

Think of it another way.

If two companies are in a dispute and they decide to hash it out in Delaware, large legal teams might have to spend months in that state. So, that also includes hotels, restaurants, shopping and everywhere else the out-of-towners might spend their dollars.

If Texas has its own system, which would include juries, those disputes could be solved in Dallas, or Houston, or Austin, or San Antonio.

“That way your lawyers can go home at night. They don’t have to spend all that money. They don’t have to eat out every night. And you can have the comfort of knowing that the judge, that these judges that are looking at these very complicated issues are equally capable as the smartest people in the country in Delaware are,” argued Villalba.

There is one big controversy associated with this legislation: the judges would be appointed, not elected. Is it even possible business courts in Texas could avoid the pitfall of partisan politics? Listen to our latest episode of Y’all-itics to learn more. Cheers!

Texas agency that handles misbehaving judges needs boost from Legislature

Understaffed ethics panel decided a record number of complaints in 2022.

A family court judge ordered two attorneys in her courtroom shackled to the jury box after they annoyed her.

A district court judge danced in the courtroom to a vulgar song, then allowed the performance to be posted on social media.

A justice of the peace issued arrest warrants for President Joe Biden and Dr. Anthony Fauci in opposition to COVID-19 and other policies.

Sadly, the list of Texas judges who behaved badly last year goes on and on. After the State Commission on Judicial Conduct disposed of a record number of 2,229 complaints, 86 judges were sanctioned, suspended or voluntarily agreed to resign, according to the agency’s 2022 annual report. Complaints against two judges were referred to law enforcement.

Texas should consider lending more support to this important state panel, preferably through administrative fees or fines. The commission says it’s understaffed and under-budgeted at a time when not only complaints are spiking, but also its responsibilities have been expanded.

Legislative mandates for faster resolution of cases took effect in 2022, as did a new rule that gave the agency authority to handle complaints against judicial candidates, instead of just officeholders.

Most of the judges disciplined last year were cited for failing to comply with the law, incompetence, having an improper demeanor and for behaving in a way that “cast public discredit on the judiciary.”

Texas voters too often choose these down-ballot public officials based on political party, not whether they’re actually qualified to be judges. That’s why the commission’s job of investigating complaints is an important backstop for the cause of justice.

Last year, the 13-member board and 14-person staff streamlined their investigation process and cleared more cases than ever before. But that “high level of productivity is not likely to be sustainable given current staffing levels,” commission Chairman David Schenck warned in the report.

That’s why the commission is asking the Legislature to beef up its $1.2 million annual budget, which comes from the state’s general revenue fund, by at least $275,000 to cover increased staffing and software costs.

Disturbingly, $75,000 of that is needed to pay outside attorneys to defend the commission against two lawsuits because Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has shamefully refused to do so, neglecting his office’s duty.

We prefer when state agencies get some funding through the payment of fees or fines, rather than relying wholly on tax dollars.

But the commission does need additional funds. Texas judges make important decisions every day in their courtrooms for tens of thousands of litigants, crime victims and defendants. The agency ensuring that those judges act ethically should have what it needs to fulfill its mission and protect public trust.

Texas judge sets $2 bail for man accused of violent crimes to protest state law

HARRIS COUNTY, Texas — A Texas judge set a $2 bond for a man accused of beating, kidnapping and attempting to strangle a woman to protest the state’s bail reform law. However, the bond was later revoked and the suspect is back in jail, online records show.

Aubrey Andre Taylor, 42, of Katy, was arrested on Dec. 28 and charged with aggravated kidnapping and assault of a family member-impeding breathing, according to Harris County online court records.

District Court Judge Joshua Hill levied the unusual bond amount to show his displeasure about Texas Senate Bill 6, which eliminates personal recognizance bonds for violent offenses, KPRC-TV reported.

Court records show that Taylor’s bail was originally set at $45,000 on Dec. 28 and then raised to $75,000 the next day. On Jan. 10, the bond was lowered to $1,000.

Hill lowered bail for the two charges the next day to $2 — a dollar for each charge, court records show. Taylor paid the fines and was out of jail by Saturday, online court records show.

In his bail order, Hill noted that the Texas Constitution prohibits “excessive bail” in Taylor’s case. He released Taylor, who has eight previous felony convictions, assigned him a GPS monitor and placed him under house arrest, The Texan news website reported.

Hill wrote that Taylor was “unable to post any amount of bail and is currently being held solely because of his inability to access funds,” the news outlet reported.

“SB 6 prohibits a personal bond in this case and further limits who can post bail on behalf of this defendant,” the judge wrote.

The measure was signed into law in 2021 by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Fox News reported.

Andy Kahan, with Crime Stoppers, said he was outraged by the decision.

“He’s charged with two serious violent offenses,” Kahan told KPRC. “A dollar bill. Since there were two cases, a 2-dollar bill.”

“I have never seen that before,” criminal defense attorney Emily Detoto told the television station. “When you first told me about it, I thought you were joking.”

Taylor landed back in jail on Wednesday. Harris County pretrial services filed a bond violation report on Monday because Taylor’s GPS monitor indicated he had not remained at his home, The Texan reported.

The court issued a warrant for Taylor’s arrest and held a brief hearing Wednesday morning, according to the news outlet. Although Taylor’s defense attorneys asked the judge to lift the warrant, Hill refused.

Taylor was booked again into the Harris County Jail later Wednesday, according to online booking records.

He is expected to appear in court on March 30, online records show.

Tort reform group puts Texas appellate court on ‘Watch List’

DALLAS – No venues in Texas made the American Tort Reform Foundation’s latest Judicial Hellholes report; however, the group did put the state’s Fifth Court of Appeals on its “Watch List.”

One of fourteen appellate courts in Texas, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas hears cases from numerous counties, including Dallas and Collin Counties.

ATRF’s report asserts the Fifth Court has developed a reputation for being pro-plaintiff and pro-liability expansion, repeatedly misapplying established U.S. Supreme Court and state precedents and procedures, which require review and reversal by the Texas Supreme Court.

“In the first half of 2022 alone, the Texas Supreme Court unanimously overturned five Fifth Court decisions that addressed significant civil justice issues,” the report states. “The Fifth Court consistently (and wrongly) sided each time with plaintiffs and expanded liability.”

The report asserts the Fifth Court has repeatedly refused to provide defendants relief in appeals challenging overbroad discovery orders.

“For example, an appellate panel refused to vacate a discovery order that required the defendant company to produce over 1,000 documents in a case stemming from an ordinary roadside accident,” the report states.

“The defendants argued that complying with the discovery order required the company to complete over 3,000 hours of document review and would cost the company $58,000. Despite the extensive costs to the defendant, the panel denied relief in a single-page opinion.”

The report also cites a Fifth Court decision to uphold a $194.4 million judgment against Toyota despite procedural and evidentiary concerns raised by the automaker.