Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. Sterling, 822 S.W.2d 1, 11, 35 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 206 (Tex. 1991)
When the majority of the court reversed Texas law and followed a previous decision -- which had already been expressly overruled -- the minority court filed a dissenting opinion:
"Visiting the graveyard of abandoned legal precedents, the court today mystically revives the corpse of Bradshaw v. Baylor University, 126 Tex. 99, 84 S.W.2d 703 (Tex. 1935), and the one recovery rule it embodied. We had previously pronounced Bradshaw dead in determining that "the reasoning behind the one recovery rule no longer applies." Duncan, 665 S.W.2d at 431, and concluding that "to the extent it conflicts with this opinion, we overrule Bradshaw v. Baylor University." Id. at 432. Now this court has awakened yet another dead tort principle to roam the land, terrorizing victims. As in The Night of the Living Dead, an unthinking zombie is raised to prey on the living. When this court has resurrected enough of these monsters, the landscape of tort law will be bleak indeed, and let the victims beware. The one recovery rule of Bradshaw is dead, and because I prefer to let the dead rest in peace, I dissent."
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Monday, October 10, 2011
I award you no points
Lopez v. Quarterman, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40002 (S.D. Tex. 2009)
After the Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was dismissed he filed four more motions, totalling 80 pages. The Court didn't understand them.
"The first of these filings was Petitioner's August 11, 2008 Motion of Continuance of Habeas with Brief in Support (Dkt. No. 18), which the Court described as a "manifesto" in which Petitioner "rambled on for 33 single-spaced, handwritten pages about issues such as 'Transformative Technologies State and Mind,' 'Marxist Leninism Socialism,' 'Naive Optimism of Sloth,' and 'Gnosticism Freemasonry.'" (Dkt. No. 19.) The Court denied Petitioner's motion, noting that Petitioner did not request relief under Rule 60(b), nor did he offer any explanation for his failure to respond to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Id.) Likewise, the Court denied Petitioner's Motion for Bench Warrant and Enter in New Evidence (Dkt. No. 20), filed December 1, 2008, which amounted to an abbreviated version of his earlier Motion for Continuance. (Dkt. No. 21.) The Court noted that "[a]gain, Petitioner has not requested relief under Rule 60(b), nor has he offered any explanation for his failure to respond to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment in a timely manner. Moreover, the Court is unable to ascertain what new evidence Petitioner wishes to present." (Id.)
"Now pending before the Court are Petitioner's third and fourth filings: his Motion of Mandamus to Reverse Dismissal of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. No. 22) and Mandamus to Enter In New Evidence (Dkt. No. 23). For the first time, Petitioner has cited Rule 60(b), 2 but he does not explain why he is entitled to relief under the Rule. Instead, he digresses for another 40 pages on issues such as "Racial Hubris," "Filibustering of Petitioner as a mortal threat as being half-black, half-devil," "National Security," "Mob Caste System Persecution," and "The Catholic Church." (Dkt. Nos. 22 & 23.)
"The Court is unable to interpret or otherwise make sense of either of Petitioner's motions. To the extent a request for relief is buried somewhere in Petitioner's ramblings, it is denied as incomprehensible. Or, in the words of the competition judge to Adam Sandler's title character in the movie, "Billy Madison,"
[W]hat you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
"BILLY MADISON (Universal Pictures 1995). . . ."
After the Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was dismissed he filed four more motions, totalling 80 pages. The Court didn't understand them.
"The first of these filings was Petitioner's August 11, 2008 Motion of Continuance of Habeas with Brief in Support (Dkt. No. 18), which the Court described as a "manifesto" in which Petitioner "rambled on for 33 single-spaced, handwritten pages about issues such as 'Transformative Technologies State and Mind,' 'Marxist Leninism Socialism,' 'Naive Optimism of Sloth,' and 'Gnosticism Freemasonry.'" (Dkt. No. 19.) The Court denied Petitioner's motion, noting that Petitioner did not request relief under Rule 60(b), nor did he offer any explanation for his failure to respond to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Id.) Likewise, the Court denied Petitioner's Motion for Bench Warrant and Enter in New Evidence (Dkt. No. 20), filed December 1, 2008, which amounted to an abbreviated version of his earlier Motion for Continuance. (Dkt. No. 21.) The Court noted that "[a]gain, Petitioner has not requested relief under Rule 60(b), nor has he offered any explanation for his failure to respond to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment in a timely manner. Moreover, the Court is unable to ascertain what new evidence Petitioner wishes to present." (Id.)
"Now pending before the Court are Petitioner's third and fourth filings: his Motion of Mandamus to Reverse Dismissal of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. No. 22) and Mandamus to Enter In New Evidence (Dkt. No. 23). For the first time, Petitioner has cited Rule 60(b), 2 but he does not explain why he is entitled to relief under the Rule. Instead, he digresses for another 40 pages on issues such as "Racial Hubris," "Filibustering of Petitioner as a mortal threat as being half-black, half-devil," "National Security," "Mob Caste System Persecution," and "The Catholic Church." (Dkt. Nos. 22 & 23.)
"The Court is unable to interpret or otherwise make sense of either of Petitioner's motions. To the extent a request for relief is buried somewhere in Petitioner's ramblings, it is denied as incomprehensible. Or, in the words of the competition judge to Adam Sandler's title character in the movie, "Billy Madison,"
[W]hat you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
"BILLY MADISON (Universal Pictures 1995). . . ."
Monday, October 3, 2011
But the Judge Called It "a Rembrandt"
Richie v. American Council on Gift Annuities, 1996 WL 743343 (N.D. Tex.)
The court was responding to a petition for writ of mandamus, so as to keep the appellate court from being misled as to what was really going on.
"If histrionics and hyperbole were an art form, what the petitioners have filed would be a Rembrandt."
The Court noted that the court file was needlessly prolix, with 403 motions, briefs and letters filed in the court. "Many are duplicative. Many do nothing to advance the ball. . . . Yet the paper keeps flowing and the meter keeps running. There are 765 documents filed thus far in the district court and my docket sheet in this case rocks on for 116 pages."
The court said that "From a personal, pragmatic, and selfish standpoint, the granting of a mandamus ordering me to dismiss this case would be a blessing. This black hole of a case sucks up staff and judicial resuorces like no other case I have dealt with."
The court was responding to a petition for writ of mandamus, so as to keep the appellate court from being misled as to what was really going on.
"If histrionics and hyperbole were an art form, what the petitioners have filed would be a Rembrandt."
The Court noted that the court file was needlessly prolix, with 403 motions, briefs and letters filed in the court. "Many are duplicative. Many do nothing to advance the ball. . . . Yet the paper keeps flowing and the meter keeps running. There are 765 documents filed thus far in the district court and my docket sheet in this case rocks on for 116 pages."
The court said that "From a personal, pragmatic, and selfish standpoint, the granting of a mandamus ordering me to dismiss this case would be a blessing. This black hole of a case sucks up staff and judicial resuorces like no other case I have dealt with."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)