judiciary rule in Texas

2024The Supreme Court of Texas has identified examples of new trial orders which amount to an abuse of discretion, including when: (1) “the given reason, specific or not, is not one for which a new trial is legally valid,” (2) “the articulated reasons plainly state that the trial court merely substituted its own judgment for the jury’s,” and (3) “the order, though rubber-stamped with a valid new-trial rationale, provides little or no insight into the judge’s reasoning.” See In re United Scaffolding, 377 S.W.3d at 688–89. 9 Here, the trial court stated that “for good cause and in the best interests

2013We disapproved of our prior approach under Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916 (Tex.1985), and held that “just as appellate courts that set aside jury verdicts are required to detail reasons for doing so, trial courts must give more explanation than ‘in the interest of justice’ for setting aside a jury verdict.” Columbia, 290 S.W.3d at 205.

2013We disapproved of our prior approach under Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916 (Tex. 1985), and held that “just as appellate courts that set aside jury verdicts are required to detail reasons for doing so, trial courts must give more explanation than ‘in the interest of justice’ for setting aside a jury verdict.” Columbia, 290 S.W.3d at 205.

2013In Columbia Medical Center, the Supreme Court overruled years of Texas precedent by holding that a trial court must give some explanation of the basis for its decision when it grants a motion for new trial. 20 The court concluded that merely stating that the grant of a new trial was “in the interest of justice” was not sufficient because such a vague explanation in setting aside a jury verdict does not enhance respect for the judiciary or the rule of law, detracts from transparency we strive to achieve in our legal system, and does not 18 See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.025 (West 2013). 19 Gold

1987It is important to emphasize here that in Government Services, supra, the Legislature required the judiciary to rule a certain way on a motion upon finding certain conditions precedent.

1987It is important to emphasize here that in Government Services, supra, the Legislature required the judiciary to rule a certain way on a motion upon finding certain conditions precedent.

1984In Benavides v. Lee, 665 S.W.2d 151 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1983, no writ), moreover, the San Antonio Court of Appeals construed the judiciary exception.