Sometimes you win even when it looks like a loss.
Yes, sometimes what looks like a loss is really a win. Case in point, In re Fire Insurance Exchange, in the Beaumont Court of Appeals. The court's opinion is hardly a model of clarity, but what is clear is that the bad guys (Farmers a/k/a Fire Insurance Exchange) lost again on the their challange to the protective order, which was the main issue. And the stuff that they appear to have won, they will ultimately lose.
Labels: Law
posted by Jack at 9/23/2004 11:21:00 PM
16 Comments:
Did Farmers have to produce all of the claims in Texas at a later date?
I dunno. I just handled the mandamus. Which, incidentally, is now pending before the Supreme Court. You can read the briefs here.
Wang, you are tough on your opponents - very biting. I hope you never talk to me that way. Your brief, however, was very good. I was extremely disappointed in counsel for
Farmers. To be succinct, his writing sucks. State Farm's brief was much better.
Actually, I toned it down quite a bit from the original draft. I tend to get impatient when the other side wastes my time with frivilous arguments and/or misrepresents the law.
The Supreme Court announced today that they want to hear oral argument in this case. Looks like I'll be in Austin on October 19.
Very exciting! Tear it up!!
Wang, you have to win this case. Do you think the Supreme Court is so biased that it would overrule Garcia?
I'd like to think they'll give it a fair hearing and decide it based on the law rather than the parties/lawyers involved.
On a day that you need to procrastinate, put up some more hyperlinks so I can read some of your other briefs.
Perhaps you'd find Humble Sand and Gravel v. Gomez interesting.
Great brief as usual, although I don't agree on the intermediary issue. Of course, what's good for y client is bad for me.
I love the way Strausburger Price stated that you "spin" the issues. My boss at the Harris County DA Appellate Divison said it was our job to frame the issues and argue persuasively rather than descriptively. Don't you just love your opponent's rhetoric?
Thumby--
You may not agree with me on the intermediary issue, but every appellate court in the United States that had ever written on the issue did.
And on the second paragraph--
I don't mind them calling it "spin." I think that's within the realm of acceptable groundless disparagement of the other side's argument.
What I don't like is when they actually misrepresent the facts or the law. That pisses me off. Especially when the court buys it.
And oneother thing--
Harris County D.A.'s office? Did you work under John Holmes? Did you ever see "Boogie Nights"? It's supposed to be about John Holmes, but I didn't see any lawyer stuff in it.
I worked for Johnny Holmes, not under him. Although he's a rich, older man, he wasn't quite my type. Moreover, something tells me he's not the same John Holmes in the documentary on porn. I bet you really liked that movie!
Enjoyed reading your posts.
Post a Comment
<< Home