What Is This I Don’t Even

You get an unfavorable opinion in the appellate court. You file a motion for rehearing. Your adversary files a response in which he says three things:

  1. “The amendment to Section 402.010(a) of the Texas Government Code requiring such notice from a party did not become effective until September 1, 2013, after this case was briefed.”
  2. “In its Third Issue for Rehearing the State admits error…. That admission of error should render moot the Motion for Rehearing and any further litigation.”
  3. “[I]n an appeal to this Court’s emotions the State improperly requests that this Court consider facts outside the record. The State’s rendition here of [those facts] is untruthful.”

Do you:

    • A) Tell the court that you weren’t admitting error, so that your motion for rehearing was not moot.
    • B) Tell the court that your rendition of the facts was truthful.
    • C) Tell the court that “Section 402.010 became effective on June 17, 2011.”
    • D) All of the above.
    • E) Both (A) and (B) but not (C).
    • F) None of the above. Keep your head down because you admitted error and falsely represented facts to the court.

I’ll give you hint: while Section 402.010 of the Texas Government Code became effective on June 17, 2011, the amendment to that statute requiring that a party file something became effective on September 1, 2013.

Still stumped?

Yeah, I’m baffled too.

About Mark Bennett

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to What Is This I Don’t Even

  1. Nigel Declan says:

    Seems pretty straightforward to me: if they accept the facts as they stand they will lose and won’t get their mulligan, so they clearly have no choice but to introduce and/or “reimagine” facts in such a way that they’ll win. You may be correct on the facts and the law, but won’t you think of the (in this case non-existent) children? That’s how the law works in Texas, right?

    • Mark Bennett says:

      Well, yeah, but that’s not the point of this post.

      The State chose to retreat from two hills and fight for one with no strategic value. In fact, it’s a hill that doesn’t even exist: their general misread the map.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>