TexasCHLforum.com

dlh wrote:

JALLEN wrote:There is a system maintained by the Federal courts for access to all court filed documents, called PACR. You register, give a deposit and they bill monthly. Less than $10 a month, no charge. It gives access to all Federal courts. IIRC, it's 10 cents a page to download. I used to use it all the time before I retired.

It is interesting to note which courts charge and which do not for court-filed documents. The Texas Supreme Court, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and Texas Appellate Courts do not charge for their opinions or filed briefs to my knowledge. They are freely accessible on-line. Same with the United States Supreme Court. Trial courts appear to be another animal--most appear to charge whether at the federal or state level. Would be nice if none of the courts charged so retired dudes like me on a fixed income can access various documents and study them.

The materials available through PACR include everything filed in the case, not evidence, deposition or court transcripts etc which the reporter owns. Opinions are available from some courts but trial courts seldom prepare "opinions."

If they were not online, as in former times they were not, you'd have to get dressed, drive down to the court clerk, or law library, and pay to park, to read them there for free.

There are many claims to the public purse, and we can't be subsidizing "retired dudes" while illegal aliens, rioters and such like go without hot meals, health care and educations, can we.

There is a system maintained by the Federal courts for access to all court filed documents, called PACR. You register, give a deposit and they bill monthly. Less than $10 a month, no charge. It gives access to all Federal courts. IIRC, it's 10 cents a page to download. I used to use it all the time before I retired.

Glockster wrote:Does anyone know if with their amended complaint they then get another shot at the retraining order?

A party can move for injunctive relief at any time during the proceeding when the facts relevant to the case demonstrate a need and the requirements for granting one are present. It would be fairly courageous to go back with another request on essentially the same facts and grounds as one previously denied.

Reading the paperwork, checking the authorities, reviewing the relevant standards and preparing a detailed order are non-trivial exercises, and judges usually have plenty to do without rebeating already dead dogs.

Filing an amended complaint is, in effect, a concession that the original one was not legally adequate, an attempt to overcome the defects in the original addressed in the Motion to Dismiss, thereby avoiding a dismissal.

Handling a case that appears to be one sided is far trickier than one where the facts and law make it an even fight. Judges try to avoid giving the hopelessly weak side an appearance of short shrift. They often go to great lengths to allow the weak side every chance to make their case, when even to the casual observer it is hopeless. It is expensive and aggravating to the stronger opponent. I once had a judge allow 5, count 'em, 5, amended pleadings in a case over a real estate commission where a writing was required to "pay" a commission, and the only writing signed by my client was to "accept" a commission. There was no possibility of pleading the required fact, but the court gave them 6 chances to torture the situation, if they could, to meet the requirement.

Have they repealed the Austin ordinance forbidding shooting Indians from a streetcar?

Until that's done, why worry about this other stuff?

Glockster wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

dlh wrote:Federal judges quickly toss frivolous cases these days. I expect that will happen in this case.

A good judge will dismiss it and impose sanctions on the attorney and the clients.

Chas.

Do you have any sense from this as to why there wasn't an outright dismissal? It seemed to me as a non-lawyer that the court found no merit in any of the arguments.

The arguments dealt only with the propriety of the requested unjunction.

There is a motion to dismiss still pending.

There could be no outright dismissal today, as the issue before the court was whether to issue a preliminary injunction. No evidence has been received on the merits, beyond the motion on the injunction, so it would be improper and premature to dismiss on the merits now.

The pending motions to dismiss are not on the merits exactly, in the sense of a ruling after taking evidence.

techenigma wrote:

TreyHouston wrote:

v7a wrote:Preliminary Injunction has been DENIED.

THANKS FOR THE UPDATE!!!! Of course I've seen nothing on the news !!!!

The news won't cover this. They like the headlines only, they never do updates on previous stories.

Sure they will. The ink is barely dry on the order. The news guys are flailing their word processors, getting comments from all the relevant players, measuring the anguish, deciding who will be assigned to audit those professors' courses to see if there are any fireworks, any bleeding to lead with.

Give it a couple hours.

There seems to be a kind of Gresham's Law effect here.

In economics, Gresham's law is a monetary principle stating that "bad money drives out good". For example, if there are two forms of commodity money in circulation, which are accepted by law as having similar face value, the more valuable commodity will disappear from circulation.

. Wikipedia

It is very noticeable when it happens. Example. I worked at a very large title insurance company while in law school. One department was supervised by a woman of a certain nationality/ethnicity. Over a period of time, all the employees in that department came to be that nationality. She was very good, that department was exceedingly efficient, no issues, but every single employee was the same ethnic origin as she was. They spoke their dialect, they were all the same religion. When a vacancy occurred,it was filled with someone of that ethnic group. If others were hired, they did not last long. It could not have been coincidence.

I observed the same phenomena among lab techs at a large medical provider in San Diego. All the lab techs were the same nationality/ethnicity. Those from other ethnicities, if not driven out, eventually found employment elsewhere, I guess.

In college teaching, the communists have taken over and have been driving out all others.

So don't fret too much about weird professors.

Somehow, somwhere, you have to perfect telling the clowns from the cowboys.

In some subjects, you are being taught the substance, the how to do it. Accounting comes to mind here. Mathematics below a certain level, maybe engineering.

In other subjects, not so much. You are being exposed to thinking and reasoning. A prof who drones on and in only about orthodoxy, conventional wisdom, is cheating you.

Don't be afraid of ideas. Be afraid of people who urge you to fear ideas, be intolerant of new thoughts, etc. Learn to think for yourself. When you do, you analyze situations, figure out for yourself whether a new idea is helpful or not, unchained from the mind control that others ply you with.

Scott Farkus wrote:This can't be good. Not only did the judge hearing the case not laugh it out of court like he should have, he actually lauded the plaintiffs.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/08/04 ... challenge/

"It goes without saying that this is an interesting case," said U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel. "Both sides, I thought, did an exceptional job."

Appointed by Bush, btw.

Don't fret about that. Judges frequently say that, sometimes even when one or both sides have put on a complete clown show. Actually, now that I think about it, it might be more commonly heard when one side has been a clown show.

As Churchill said, "When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite." I think it was a different context, of course.

When the clown show side goes to lunch after the hearing and starts berating their lawyer(s) for the clown show, the lawyers can recall that expression of "approval" from the judge, and may not have to pick up the tab.