October 8, 2013 in News
On October 8, 2013, Jeff Levinger completed an unusual trifecta of arguing three different cases before the Texas Supreme Court in a span of less than eight months.  The October case is styled LAN/STV v. Martin K. Eby Construction Co., No. 11-0810, and presents the issue whether the economic loss rule affects a general contractor’s right to bring a negligent misrepresentation claim against an architect and engineer for providing inaccurate information on which the contractor relied in preparing its bid.  Levinger argued the second case on September 9, 2013; it is styled Kia Motors Corp. v. Ruiz, No. 11-0709, and presents several evidentiary issues in a products liability case involving a frontal airbag that failed to deploy in a head-on collision.  The first case, Ritchie v. Rupe, No. 11-0447, was argued on February 26, 2013 and presents questions regarding the scope of and remedies for the claim of minority shareholder oppression in Texas.  Click here to read the transcript from the oral argument in the Rupe case, Click here to read the transcript from the oral argument in the Ruiz case, Click here to read the transcript from the oral argument in the Eby case.

Subject Matter:  Business Litigation, Products Liability and Personal Injury, Procedural and Evidentiary Issues.

September 12, 2013 in News
On September 12, 2013, Jeff Levinger took the reins as Chair of the State Bar of Texas Appellate Section at the section’s annual meeting in Austin.  As Chair, Levinger will lead a section of over 500 members and 20 working committees for a one-year term.  Levinger has been active in the Appellate Section for over 12 years, first serving as co-chair of the Pro Bono committee and then working up the ranks of the officer positions.  Levinger’s former partner and mentor, the late Marvin S. Sloman, was co-founder and a chair of the Appellate Section nearly 30 years ago.

January 9, 2013 in News
Jeff Levinger served as appellate counsel to Mike Gruber and other trial lawyers from Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank in representing their client, MC Asset Recovery LLC, against Castex Energy in a jury trial before U.S. District Judge Terry Means in Fort Worth.  MC Asset Recovery sued Castex for fraud and breach of contract arising from the sale of an interest in a South Louisiana oil and gas field ‑‑ an interest that Castex had secretly negotiated to resell to Apache for a $75 million profit.  The suit sought compensatory and punitive damages against Castex and affiliated defendants in excess of $400 million.  Castex was represented by the law firms of Susman Godfrey and Gordon Arata.  The case settled on the second day of trial for a confidential sum.

Subject Matter:  Business Litigation, Oil & Gas/Real Estate

November 30, 2012 in News
In November 2012, the State Bar of Texas issued the 2012 edition of the Texas Pattern Jury Charges ‑ Malpractice, Premises & Products for the use of the bench and bar in their preparation and submission of jury charges. Jeff Levinger has served on the committee that authors this volume for more than a decade, and he has chaired the committee since 2009. In a preface to the 2012 edition, Levinger summarized the additions and revisions to the volume, described the committee’s nonpartisanship and guiding principles, and dedicated the volume “to the founders and protectors of the American legal system, without whom we would not have juries to charge.”

Subject Matter:  Products Liability & Personal Injury

March 23, 2011 in News
The four federal district judges who have ruled thus far on the constitutionality of the Obama health care law were split along party lines—with two Democratic appointees upholding the law and two Republican appointees declaring it unconstitutional. The Florida decision striking down the law will be appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, which is currently composed of 9 Republican appointees and 7 Democratic appointees. Two Virginia decisions, which came out opposite ways, will be reviewed by the Fourth Circuit – a 17-judge court with 9 Democratic appointees. And the Michigan decision upholding the law will proceed to the Sixth Circuit, which has 19 Republican appointees and 10 Democratic appointees. But all these numbers include senior circuit judges – who occasionally sit on 3-judge panels and almost never sit en banc—thus making any prediction based on party lines sheer conjecture.

The picture in the Supreme Court is equally murky, despite its current makeup of 5 Republican appointees and 4 Democratic appointees. In a recent editorial in the New York Times, Professor Laurence Tribe opined that the constitutionality of the health care law “is not one of those novel, one-off issues, like the outcome of the 2000 presidential election,” but instead turns on the Court’s historically broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause. In Professor Tribe’s view, Justices Scalia and Kennedy are likely to back an expansive view of the Commerce Clause to uphold the controversial mandatory insurance provision in the law, and only Justice Thomas can be counted as a likely vote against the law. If Professor Tribe is right, the healthcare law may garner enough votes to pass constitutional muster – even if Justice Kagen recuses herself based on her previous role in the Obama administration. But we’re likely not to know until the 2011-12 term, at the earliest.