It’s my understanding that this is the final text of the new Chancery “super court.” Unless I’m missing something, this is not that big a deal? It’s largely purposeless, sure, but this is a pretty modest change, particularly compared with what was initially proposed.
The folks who pushed this are going to be *shocked* to learn that the problem with their laughably unconstitutional shit was not, in fact, the county where suit is filed.
Relatedly (and I don’t have a great way to verify this), I would be pretty surprised to learn that more than a handful qualifying cases are filed each year. So I guess the 5-10 of us who file these kinds of cases regularly will get our own little special panel thing.
Seriously, I can only think of maybe a dozen or so total qualifying civil cases filed in state court over the past few years. Someone tell me what I’m missing.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Daniel A. Horwitz

Daniel A. Horwitz Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Scot_Blog

7 May
This tweet belongs in a museum. Image
Make sure you get the “Twitter for iPhone” part in, it completes the triple crown.
Relatedly, for anyone who missed it earlier this week, I injured myself laughing at this clip:
Read 4 tweets
5 May
I have thought about this for years, and I am finally at the point where I’m completely convinced: There should be full and automatic fee shifting to prevailing parties in all litigation between private litigants.
Many. And their recoveries would have been larger and faster if big corporations and insurance companies had to worry about paying my fees.
Additional, related note: It would also make financial sense to represent individuals with low-damages cases against large corporations and insurance companies if you could win a fee-shift. Right now, it makes no financial sense at all.
Read 31 tweets
29 Apr
This thread is (unsurprisingly) valuable and correct and good, and you should read it. I’m just chiming in to note that:

(1) Intros are not just for briefs! They are valuable in complaints, too.

(2) Readers often don’t read stuff in a single sitting, so the intro helps orient.
I get lots of love for my intros (see, e.g., ), so to the extent they’re useful to anyone, I’ll link some of my favorites below. Also note: Most courts don’t ask for intros or require them. To quote Judge Sutton: “But the rules don’t prohibit them, either.”
My view on intros has always been that in addition to providing a road map for what follows, they should quickly introduce and then hammer home your strongest argument right upfront. Here’s the intro from the Ludye Wallace case, for instance: horwitz.law/wp-content/upl….
Read 8 tweets
28 Apr
I’ve picked up a ton of new followers recently (Welcome! Sorry in advance!), so just to introduce myself and give you a sense of what I do, here’s a brief thread. Or you can just click the link down here👇 (tba.org/index.cfm?pg=L…) and be current through early 2018:
I file lawsuits that some people might call crazy against bad actors who never expect to be sued and do things like institute inmate sterilization programs: tennessean.com/story/news/201…
I do actual innocence work: nytimes.com/2020/11/12/us/…
Read 18 tweets
27 Apr
A lawsuit has just been filed against District Attorney Ray Crouch, @dicksonpolice, and many @TBInvestigation officials regarding their malicious prosecution and false arrest of Joshua Garton for posting a meme that offended law enforcement: horwitz.law/wp-content/upl… My statement: ImageImageImage
The background on this outrageous prosecution is here: lawandcrime.com/crazy/constitu…. I’m confident @TBIJoshDeVine will have a comment if you ask him for one.

@cjciaramella @LambeJerry @NC5_NickBeres @tbroker23 @Popehat
Read 13 tweets
26 Feb
Having spent a little bit of time looking into this, I can confidently say: This is bogus and legally impermissible. A brief thread on the issue, and why.
Here's the removal provision of the Tennessee Constitution. If you think it appears to contemplate removal of a judge for cause only, you are right.
In 1899, the issue was presented to the Tennessee Supreme Court in McCulley v. State, 53 S.W. 134, 137 (Tenn. 1899). The case involved whether, under Article 6, § 6, the General Assembly could, "for economic reasons, [] remove a judge whose office is still in existence."
Read 14 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(