Payola Justice: How Texas Supreme Court Justices Raise Money from Court Litigants

home | table of contents | previous | next

Like the scandal-plagued Texas Supreme Court of the 1980s, the current justices have been criticized for being activists who throw precedents out the window with decisions that benefit the special interests that finance their campaigns. In its July 1997 report, "The Texas Supreme Court in 1996-97," Texas Citizen Action identified the court's "Terrible Ten" decisions, which have helped tilt Texas court rooms to the favor of corporate board rooms at the expense of consumers. The Terrible Ten cases are presented here with any money that parties in these cases contributed to the seven justices studied in this report.

1. Arthur Andersen v. Perry Equipment (#95-0444)
Makes it harder for injured consumers to find lawyers and for plaintiff lawyers to fund future cases (see page XXX).                                         $500 linked contributions

2. St. Luke's Hospital v. Agbor (#96-0085)
Shields hospitals that grant the right to practice to physicians who are known to be dangerous (See page XXX).        $45,100 linked contributions

3. State of Texas ex rel. v. Hardberger (#96-0643)
Trumps a legislative statute allowing voters to fill judicial vacancies, replacing it with the governor's constitutional power to appoint replacements.        $3,950 linked contributions

4. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals v. Havner (#95-1036)
Expands judicial rules covering expert testimony on novel scientific theories (so-called "junk science") to cover all scientific testimony by witnesses.         $0 linked contributions

5. American Tobacco Co. v. Grinnell (#94-1227)
Allows tobacco companies to dodge some liabilities for the harmful health effects of their products.         $17,161 linked contributions

6. Richey v. Brookshire Grocery Co. (#95-0692)
Holds that merchants need not exercise care in filing charges against inadvertent shoplifters.         $16,247 linked contributions

7. New Summary Judgment Rule
New rules on pre-trial motions for case dismissals add to litigant expenses and remove safeguards designed to prevent abuses.                $0 linked contributions

8. Gulf States Utilities v. Public Utility Commission et al. (#94-1229)
Helps utilities stick consumers with costs that they typically cannot pass on to their customers.                                                         $0 linked contributions

9. Texas Utilities v. Timmons (#96-0247)
Holds that a frequently scaled electric tower was not attractive to the 14-year-old boy who was electrocuted while climbing it.        $36,300 linked contributions

10. Lefmark Management Co. v. Old (#95-0983)
Shields mall managers who fail to report and remedy security problems from any liability for the deaths of customers who get attacked on the property.         $0 linked contributions

home | table of contents | previous | next