Vanishing Jury Trial, Part 2

Earlier we wrote about Professor Gerald Powell’s amicus brief filed with the Texas Supreme Court in Coca Cola v. Harmar.  In the brief, Professor Powell criticized the Court for its continued willingness to reverse juries’ findings.  Professor Powell is not alone in his criticism of the Court.  Another coalition of law school professors has filed an amicus in the same case.

The professors (Lanny Hoffman from the University of Houston, Alex Albright from the University of Texas, Daniel Benson from Texas Tech, David Crump from the University of Houston, William Dorsaneo from SMU, Elizabeth Thornberg from SMU, and Robert Weringer from Texas Tech), who all are civil procedure specialists, all write on their own, without compensation.  The summary of the professors’ arguments is:

Our central concern, stated plainly and emphatically, is that it is troubling to see the Court reject a verdict in which the jury found it to be (at least) more likely than not that the Petitioners had violated the antitrust laws when the Court does not declare the evidence on which the verdict was based to be legally inadmissable. In the absence of a more searching inquiry, the majority’s opinion seems merely to have substituted its judgment for that of the jury.

The brief is not yet available on the Supreme Court’s site, but presumably, it should be available here in a few days.

To contact Austin Personal Injury Lawyer, Austin Personal Attorney, Austin Accident Lawyer, Austin Injury Lawyer Perlmutter & Schuelke, PLLC or to learn more about Austin Personal Injury visit https://www.civtrial.com/.