St. Mary's University, Texas
St. Mary's University, San Antonio: St. Mary's Law Digital RepositoryNot a member yet
1503 research outputs found
Sort by
10-0238 IN RE UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS OF TEX. INS. CO.
No full text10-0238 In re Universal Underwriters of Texas Insurance Co. from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth For relator: Don Martinson, Dallas For real party in interest: Scott M. Keller, Dallas For amicus curiae Texas Trial Lawy
09-0955 ALLEN KELLER CO. V. FOREMAN
No full text09-0955 Allen Keller Co. v. Barbara Jean Foreman, et al. from Gillespie County and the Fourth District Court of Appeals, San Antonio granted on rehearing For petitioner: Wade Crosnoe, Austin For respondents: Randy Howry, Austin The issue is whether a con
Legal Reading and Success in Law School: The Reading Strategies of Law Students with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)
No full textA certain percentage of law students come with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) or with another learning disability, either disclosed or undisclosed. Yet there has been little empirical research on how law students with learning disabilities read and understand the law. This study examined how three law students with ADD read a judicial opinion. The results suggested a relationship between successful law school performance and the use of problematizing and rhetorical reading strategies; and less successful law school performance and the use of default reading strategies. Results suggest that law students with ADD can be successful and productive members of any law school community. Becoming an effective legal reader may be one of the most important ways law students with ADD can enhance their law school success
Equal Protection for the Gifted Student in the Public School System (Comment)
No full textPennsylvania requires its school districts to address the needs of its gifted students, but their duty is limited to the use of their existing educational resources. I suggest rejection of this limitation under a modified model that uses a subjective standard in evaluating whether the district has fulfilled its duty to provide a free and appropriate public education to the gifted student through an Individualized Education Program. Part II of this Comment discusses the right to a free public education and then moves on to the specific treatment of gifted public school students. Part III highlights the need for a reformulation of the definition of public education. More specifically, public education should focus on individualized progress rather than proficiency. Part IV outlines how reliance on an improper conception of education allows the persistence of inequities in the public school system, which results in the violation of gifted students' rights to equal protection. Part V suggests that states adopt a modified version of the Pennsylvania model, which would reject the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's limitation on the duty of the school district and instead require proof that the district's curricular offerings are reasonable. This would make a judicial remedy available to gifted students whose reasonable needs are not being addressed because of unjust allocations of or disparities in district resources. The availability of a judicial remedy is especially crucial for gifted students who are already disadvantaged by disparities in educational resources. Part VI lists several issues to keep in mind as we attempt to cure inequities in the public education system while also acknowledging the financial and pedagogical realities of that system
09-0497 TYLER SCORESBY, M.D. v. SANTILLAN
No full text09-0497 Tyler Scoresby, M.D. v. Catarino Santillan from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth For petitioner Tyler Scoresby: Michael A. Yanof, Dallas For petitioner Yadranko Ducic, M.D.: David L. Pratt and Randy J. Hall, For
09-0753 ILIFF v. ILIFF
No full text09-0753 James Derwood Iliff v. Jerilyn True Iliff from Hays County and the Third District Court of Appeals, Austin For petitioner: Jeremy C. Martin, Dallas For respondent: Frank B. Suhr, New Braunfels For amicus curiae State of Texas: David S. Morales, A
09-0544 MOLINET v. PATRICK KIMBRELL, M.D.
No full text09-0544 Jeremy Molinet v. Patrick Kimbrell, M.D. and John Horan, M.D. from Bexar County and the Fourth District Court of Appeals, San Antonio For petitioner: Eugene W. Brees, Austin For respondents: R. Brent Cooper, Dallas The issue is whether the two-ye
09-0191 HYDE PARK BAPTIST CHURCH v. TARA TURNER
No full text09-0191 Hyde Park Baptist Church v. Tara Turner and Terry Curtis from Travis County and the Third District Court of Appeals, Austin For petitioner: David M. Pruessner, Dallas For respondents: Laurie Higginbotham, Austin In this case involving a teacher’
08-0890 OFFSHORE SPECIALTY FABRICATORS, INC. v. WELLINGTON UNDERWRITING AGENCIES, LTD.
No full text08-0890 Offshore Specialty Fabricators Inc., et al. v. Wellington Underwriting Agencies Ltd., et al. from Harris County and the 14th District Court of Appeals, Houston For petitioner Houston Exploration Co., S. Shawn Stephens, Houston For petitioner Offs
08-0833 ANGLO-DUTCH PETROLEUM INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. GREENBERG PEDEN, P.C.
No full text08-0833 Anglo-Dutch Petroleum International Inc. v. Greenberg Peden P.C. and Gerard J. Swonke from Harris County and the 14th District Court of Appeals, Houston For petitioners: Gregory S. Coleman, Austin For amicus curiae, Abrams Scott & Bickley: Christ