May 25, 2012

This Week in the Fifth Circuit

Several opinions this week from the Mighty Mighty Fifth Circuit that will be of interest to civil practitioners.  They run the gamut from Free Speech and Assembly to original federal proceedings seeking discovery for use in a foreign action. 

  • Ecuadorian Plaintiffs v. Chevron Corporation (pdf), written by Judge Benavides, the Court affirmed an order under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) requiring a "foundational deposition." Chevron, which had been sued in Ecuador for environmental damage, sought to establish that an ostensibly neutral expert appointed by an Ecuadoran court was really in cahoots with the plaintiffs. 
  • International Women's Day March Planning Committee v. City of San Antonio (pdf), again written by Judge Benavides, is a thorough First Amendment test of the parade permitting ordinance enforced by the City of San Antonio.  It passed.  
  • Martin v. Halliburton (pdf), written by Judge King, amends the court's earlier opinion of March 23.  The case arose out of the activities of governmental contractors in support of the military effort in Iraq.  The Court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, holding that the denial of the defendants' assertions of immunity did not fall within the collateral order doctrine. 

And that's the way it was.  Stay tuned next week for discourse on the hardest instrument to play, and what it has in common with being an appellate lawyer.

© 2012 Andrews Kurth LLP

About the Author

Partner

Kendall is a board certified civil appellate specialist who has represented clients in state and federal appellate courts such as the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Fifth, Ninth, Tenth and Federal Circuits, the Supreme Court of Texas and many intermediate courts of appeal. His practice includes a variety of complex commercial, medical malpractice and toxic tort matters, as well as a particular focus in disputes involving employee benefits, managed care and ERISA. The disputes commonly require complex written and oral advocacy on such topics as ERISA...

713-220-3981

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.