Texas Court Finds, Inter Alia, That Plaintiff's Attorney Ain't Very Good -- Via The Volokh Conspiracy[PDF]
I read "What No Client or Lawyer Wants to See in a Court Decision" this morning at the well-trafficked law blog The Volokh Conspiracy. A Texas court, deciding a suit brought by a father against the clinic that gave his 14 year-old daughter a morning-after pill, points out, in so many words, that the plaintiff's attorney has made a poor showing for his client.
"Plaintiff’s counsel, when asked during the initial pretrial conference to explain his public nuisance claim, was unable to name the elements of a public nuisance . . . "
And this gem:
" . . . when Plaintiff’s counsel was asked at the initial pretrial conference to provide authority for this [parental rights] cause of action, he stated, “I thought it was so basic I didn’t bother to do research.” Plaintiff has thus failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted for each of the three causes of action asserted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)."
As a law student steeped in Civil Procedure this semester, I am well aware of the "failure to state a claim" schtick. Essentially, it means that the stuff you said you should get compensation for, in the form of injunctive relief, damages, etc., isn't grounds for that compensation at all. It means that, in the court's view of the facts as presented, there's nothing wrong with the picture, legally speaking. It's of kind like a court-ordered "whammy" to plaintiff's counsel.
- Have at least a clue about the elements of public nuisance: "(1) The tortfeasor's activity that (2) that unreasonably and substantially interferes with (3) the public's use and enjoyment of legal rights common to the public." William R. Buckley & Cathy J. Okrent, Torts and Personal Injury Law, §10.3 (3d ed. 2003). (Google Books).
- Oh, and do research.
