• Home
  • RSS Feeds
  • Blog Archives
Subscribe to Disputing
Book an ADR Service
Call Karl Bayer
Karl Bayer's Disputing Blog - Mediator, Arbitrator, Court Master & Technical Advisor
About Karl  |  Book an ADR Service  |  Contact Karl   (214) 891-4505

Menu 
  • home
  • Mediation
  • Arbitration
  • Court Neutrals
  • Online Dispute Resolution
  • Technology
    • Intellectual Property
    • Privacy and Cybersecurity
    • E-discovery
  • Court Decisions
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • Fifth Circuit
    • Third Court of Appeals
    • U.S. Supreme Court
  • More
    • Legislation
      • Texas
      • United States
    • Healthcare
    • Guest Posts
      • John DeGroote
      • John C. Fleming
      • Rick Freeman
      • Professor Peter Friedman
      • Honorable W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
      • James M. Gaitis
      • Laura A. Kaster
      • Professor John Lande
      • Philip J. Loree, Jr.
      • Michael McIlwrath
      • F. Peter Phillips
      • Professor Alan Scott Rau
      • Professor Thomas J. Stipanowich
      • Professor S.I. Strong
      • Richard Webb
      • Glen M. Wilkerson
    • International arbitration
    • Regulation
    • Sports and Entertainment


Friday, February 3, 2006

0
by Rob Hargrove

Friday, Feb 03, 2006


Tweet

This morning, the Third Court of Appeals affirmed a Travis County trial court decision to grant a summary judgment in favor of the Comptroller’s office in a putative class action case which alleged that the Comptroller’s failure to pay interest on property returned to Texans under the Unclaimed Property Act constituted a taking.

While the court’s analysis of the Unclaimed Property Act is perhaps not of general interest, the opinion does begin with an interesting discussion of the unusual results which Travis County’s Central Docket can inspire. In this case, the State filed a motion for summary judgment on the merits prior to the class certification hearing. Judge Keel heard the motion and denied it. Judge Triana then denied the State’s Motion for Rehearing. Judge Keel’s decision was apparently a result of the State’s having made an internal book-keeping error, which made it appear as though the State had in fact earned a great deal of interest on the unclaimed property it held on behalf of the putative class, which was not in fact eventually returned along with the property.

After the State lost its MSJ and motion for rehearing, it apparently corrected and explained the clerical error and demonstrated that no interest was in fact earned. Judge Jenkins, presiding over the class certification hearing, actually ended up granting the state’s already-denied motion for summary judgment. The Third Court of Appeals included some of Judge Jenkins’ comments from the hearing expressing concern in its opinion, and it concluded that Judge Jenkins acted perfectly appropriately, as he had the power to set aside any interlocutory orders at any time before judgment (or actually until the Court’s plenary power had expired.)

This opinion, therefore, could be quite useful for anyone practicing in Austin’s central docket who finds him or her self arguing that a trial judge can and perhaps ought to revisit an earlier decision by one of his or her colleagues

Cause No. 03-05-00212-CV, Clark, et al. v. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts

Technorati Tags:
litigation, Third Court of Appeals, law

Related Posts

  • Thursday, October 20, 2005Thursday, October 20, 2005
  • Wednesday, August 31, 2005Wednesday, August 31, 2005
  • Texas Supreme Court finds Agreement to ArbitrateTexas Supreme Court finds Agreement to Arbitrate
  • Third Court of Appeals Enforces Conditions Precedent to ArbitrationThird Court of Appeals Enforces Conditions Precedent to Arbitration
  • Death and Divorce in TexasDeath and Divorce in Texas
  • Hairstylists Get Another Day in CourtHairstylists Get Another Day in Court

Like this article? Share it!


  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
    LinkedIn

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
    X

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
    Facebook

  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
    Pinterest

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
    Email
About

Legal Research

Legal Research

Connect with Disputing

Visit Us On LinkedinCheck Our Feed

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

Recent Posts

We're Back!!!!
Feb 24, 2025
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
May 28, 2024
Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements: The Twenty-First Century Arbitration Battleground and Implications for the EU Countries
Nov 27, 2023

Featured Posts

Tips on Taking Good Remote Depositions From a Veteran Court Reporter

Online Mediation May Allow Restorative Justice to Continue During COVID-19

Remote Arbitration Best Practices: Witness Examination

Search

Legal Research

Legal Research


© 2025, Karl Bayer. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy