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
Proof of Exoneration in Legal Malpractice Cases: The Peeler Doctrine and Its Limits in Texas and Beyond
No full textThis article examines the requirements of “actual innocence” or exoneration as a prerequisite for bringing a claim of legal malpractice against a criminal defense attorney. It analyzes the public policy underpinnings and differing approaches taken in those jurisdictions that have adopted an “actual innocence” requirement
Moot Points Notes from the Sarita Kenedy East Law Library Issue 23 June and July 2014
No full textDirector's Message; Library Transactions By the Numbers; Recent Library Staff Publications; Celebrating 30 Years!; Confidential Information on Computers Phones and Tablets; Recent Faculty Publications; New In Our DVD Collection A Place in the Sun; Neighborhood Dinin
2014: CLE: Texas Supreme Court Update
No full textDuring this session, Professor Scott will present the most important cases decided by the Texas Supreme Court during the past year and thoughts concerning the future direction of the court
Best Brief Contest Winner: Martin County v. Anne Dhaliwal, 12-696a Brief for Respondent Winner of the 2014 Best Brief Contest at St. Mary's University School of Law
No full textEach year, each Legal Research and Writing faculty member submits one brief from her or his class to the St. Mary s Law Journal editorial board. The board then selects one winner from each 1L section, resulting in four briefs which represent the best brief from that section. The editorial board then selects a “super brief” from amongst those winners, representing the best brief of the 1L class. Results are announced at the annual Law Journal banquet in April
Is Litigation Counsel Who Also Engages in Competitive Decision-Making Wrong for the Part?
No full textIn-house counsel wear different hats, and are often involved in business decisions regarding products, marketing, and other strategic issues. It was in this context that courts began to adopt protective orders that precluded in-house counsel who provided their clients advice with “competitive decision-making” from having access to information from a competitor disclosed in discovery. Prosecution bars present numerous issues for courts and counsel. It may be that because of prosecution counsel’s knowledge of the technology that her service as trial counsel would lead to cost savings and other benefits to her client. However, due to the myriad problems that arise from having litigation counsel also engage in other activities, she may be wrong for the part. Only through careful analysis of the policies involved, and careful drafting of any protective orders can courts, clients, and counsel be sure of their casting decisions
The Price of Justice: An Analysis of the Costs That are Appropriately Considered in a Cost-cased Vindication of Statutory Rights Defense to an Arbitration Agreement
No full textIn the wake of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, parties opposing enforcement of an arbitration agreement with a class waiver increasingly relied on the prohibitive-costs-based vindication of statutory rights defense. The Supreme Court recently held in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant that the effective vindication doctrine cannot be used to invalidate an otherwise enforceable arbitration agreement with class-action waiver simply because the opponents have no “economic incentive” to pursue individual arbitration. However, the Court’s bases for this holding are unclear and unnecessarily call into question the very existence of the “effective vindication doctrine.” This Article examines the historical underpinnings of the prohibitive-costs-based defense and the different frameworks courts have employed to analyze those costs. These approaches can be summarized as (1) the subjective approach, which compares the costs of arbitration to the litigant’s ability to pay; (2) the comparative approach, which compares the costs of arbitration to the costs of proceeding in litigation; (3) the cost/benefit approach, which compares the costs of arbitration to the likelihood of the plaintiff’s potential recovery; and (4) the incentive-based approach, which considers whether the plaintiffs or their potential attorneys have any incentive, given the costs involved, to pursue their claims. This Article concludes that the comparative approach is the only approach that is both grounded in the text of the Court’s vindication of statutory rights jurisprudence and serves the purposes of the FAA and enforcing statutory rights