Jump to content

wreckatx

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by wreckatx

  1. 1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Yeah, I didn't keep reading far enough until after I hit post.

    Is the $250k set out somewhere or just what takes it out of the waivers of this and the tort claims act, thus putting it squarely in immunity territory where there's nothing without legislative consent?  You mentioned the govt code, but both this and the TTCA have $250k limitations and TTCA higher.

    I don't deal with this stuff very often, learn it on occasion and promptly forget it again except the obvious things like TTCA.

    I misspoke. The requirement that the legislature approve settlements or judgments against the state in excess of $250k is in the general appropriations act. All kinds of judgements and settlements over this threshold are routinely approved by the legislature every session. It was really unusual that the Lege didn’t approve the whistleblowers settlement last session.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  2. 3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    It's because of sovereign immunity.  In a normal application of sovereign immunity, the lawsuit doesn't even go forward.

    But because this cause of action (whistleblower act) specifically "targets" government employees and agents and agencies in their official capacity, there is an implied waiver that lets the suit go forward.  I think it also permits recovery of those damages specified by the Act without legislative approval.**

    But, the plaintiffs here are alleging other things, where the Act might not support those damages.  So, to be extra clear about it, they sought legislative approval/appropriation for the settlement, whether strictly necessary or not.

    **ETA:  the Act, https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.554.htm, places damage limitations of 250k per claim for other than past lost wages and damages.

    This is incorrect. The whistleblower act provides an explicit, limited waiver of sovereign immunity to allow govt employees that are fired because they report crimes by other govt employees to sue their employing agency for lost wages, reinstatement or front pay, and attorney’s fees. However, the government code requires legislative approval approval of any settlement with or judgment against a state agency that is in excess of $250k.

    A judge cannot order the executive branch to pay, or the legislature to approve payment of, a judgment against the state because of separation of powers. The decision whether to approve payment is vested strictly in the legislature.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  3. 24 minutes ago, troph said:

    Tom is a bad ass. Highly recommend him for high profile employment cases. He’s also just a genuine good guy, always does the right thing, the real right thing not the Jesus fake right thing. 

    There are some really good lawyers on that team. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  4. 4 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    When is the last time a R didn't win the general, and when was the last incumbent who didn't win their primary? They're only taking political donations just so they can get some free vacations out of a few campaign events around the state. 

    Devine is a true believer and Blacklock may be, too. Just when you thought that court could not get any more conservative.

  5. Statement from Tom Nesbitt, whistleblower Blake Brickman’s attorney, on this development:

    “Ken Paxton hid out from his impeachment trial and was excused from testifying because he invoked his right not to incriminate himself.  And he has played so long for delay in this case because he is terrified to answer questions about his corrupt conduct. He should be.”

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
  6. 1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

    For the peanut gallery, you don't usually need a subpoena for a party to the lawsuit, you just notice their deposition.

    A subpoena may up the ante a little bit for failure to appear as they are enforceable by contempt.  But, if you don't need one, I'm not sure you can get contempt.

    I think the confusion with your comments is because Nate is not a party to the Whistleblower suit.  Nate was at the courthouse Wednesday testifying in one of his lawsuits, and the Whistleblowers served him with a subpoena and deposition notice in their suit.  So it wasn't a subpoena served on a party defendant.  In other words, the Whistleblowers are going to depose Nate, which should be interesting to say the least. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  7. 1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Bit more context.  The rules actually provide for ex parte relief, so that part is according to Hoyle.

    But, as South Austin observes, one of the ways in which Texas judges have gotten smarter about TROs is to refuse to grant them completely ex parte.  Most of the time, they're going to ask you to get the other side on the phone, at the very least.  Sometimes they'll set the hearing in a couple of days so any damage is minimized.

    This is fairly unusual.  But, in a pretty non-commercial venue like Llano County, something you might expect, because judges probably don't have much experience with them, compared to the more urban, commercial counties.  Politics notwithstanding.

    Still, I expect there was some kind of "understanding" that this judge would be favorable, so yeah dirty pool.

    It's only a delay of a couple of weeks, and yeah immediately appealable, but not like most courts of appeal are going to be able to act much faster than 14 days.  Still, in this particular context, pretty fucking disgusting.

    Bit more context: the local rules in Burnet County require the party seeking the TRO to notify the opposing party’s atty, if known, of the TRO and provide them the opportunity to appear. OAG did not do that. Dirty pool.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  8. Today SCOTX granted the Whistleblower's motion to lift the abatement and denied the Attorney General's petition for review siding with the whistleblowers and affirming the Third Court of Appeals and trial court rulings denying Paxton's bullshit plea to the jurisdiction. Whistleblower's civil case is headed back to Travis County district court.  Pretty remarkable that SCOTX denied review since Abbott and Patrick both filed amicus letters urging the court to grant review.

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 3
×
×
  • Create New...