The point of summary judgment is to dismiss cases that have no genuine chance of winning in front of a jury, or cases that a jury should not even hear. Summary judgment should result in dismissal of  cases that lack any real issue of fact. Why have a trial if there is no genuine issue? 

Its an “open” secret in Texas jurisprudence: it does not matter what happens in the lower courts, an employer’s or large corporation’s best chance lies in the Texas Supreme Court. The Texas Supreme Court routinely overrules jury verdicts. See my prior post about the high court taking away jury verdicts here and here.


Schlumberger cannot accept its loss in a recent jury trial. The large oil field service company has asked U.S. District Judge Lamberth for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. That is, it has asked the judge to toss the jury verdict saying the verdict lacked evidentiary support. See San Antonio Express News report (account required). The

One of the things about litigation is that strategy often takes precedence over substance. In the Redus family lawsuit against University of the Incarnate Word, the university asked to dismiss the lawsuit. UIW claimed to be an “arm of the government” such that they would be immune to suits for personal injury. Cough, cough. Yes,

In federal court, parties can be ordered to pay sanctions. Mentioning that to clients always attracts interest. If a person or entity “mis-behaves” in court, the judge can sanction them. Sanctions include anything from paying money, paying the opposition attorney’s fees to even outright dismissal. In one recent Fifth Circuit decision, a lawyer was ordered