TX Supreme Court: reconsiders a lawsuit after a large donation from the defendant

[Winehole23]

Last fall, it seemed that Apache Corp., the giant Houston oil company, had hit a dead end in a long-running legal battle.


A paralegal named Cathryn Davis claimed the company fired her in 2013 for complaining about age and gender discrimination. A jury agreed, awarding $900,000 to her and her attorneys; an appeals court upheld the judgment. The company asked the Texas Supreme Court to review the case; but on Oct. 2, it declined.


Litigants can ask the state’s highest civil court to reconsider such decisions, but it’s a long shot; nearly 98 percent of the time (https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=articles&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=46471), it refuses, according to research by the Texas Bar. Nevertheless, Apache notified the Supreme Court it intended to ask for a so-called rehearing.






After the company contributed $250,000 in political support to justices seeking re-election, the court changed its mind.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/After-250k-in-political-support-from-Apache-16336149.php

[Winehole23]

Davis’ Houston attorney, Scott Newar, is unconvinced. The money Apache contributed to the justices while they were considering the appeal “creates the appearance that justice is for sale in Texas and undermines the Texas Supreme Court’s appearance of independence, impartiality and neutrality,” he said.

He said he will ask the court to withdraw its opinion in part because of the contributions from Apache and its law firm, Vinson & Elkins, which donated tens of thousands of dollars more to the justices while the Apache case was pending.

[Winehole23]

Thread title correction: the donation wasn't direct, but went through a PAC and Vinson and Elkins.

[boutons_deux]

Elected judges, esp SC judges = invitation to corruption