Businesses of all types and sizes throughout the United States, Mexico and beyond bring their disputes to Gardere's litigation team and receive practical, responsive, boutique-style attention in return. Our clients have access to the firepower and value of a well-known and highly-regarded Firm's capabilities and interdisciplinary strengths.
Gardere has a national and international energy practice formed around our Energy Industry Team, which is a multidisciplinary group of approximately 60 attorneys with diverse backgrounds, experience and skills specific to the energy industry. Our team includes attorneys who have served as in-house counsel for major energy companies, providing a depth of insight into our clients' needs, issues and concerns. We understand and regularly practice in virtually every sector of the energy, and we represent a wide variety of industry participants from multinational corporations to individuals.
From our offices in the United States and Mexico, our International Practice helps clients operate in today’s global economy. We have more than 30 professionals operating as a boutique within an Am Law 200 law firm and are able to provide focused service with the resources of a large firm. We understand that clients who are engaged in the global marketplace need lawyers who can operate seamlessly across multiple jurisdictions. Our international experts are multi-lingual, are culturally fluent and intimately familiar with various legal systems across the world, especially those in Latin America. Whether you need help with commercial transactions, regulatory matters, customs and import regulations, immigration matters, M&A and joint ventures, international disputes, or international tax planning, Gardere’s international team is here to assist you.
We represent domestic and foreign private funds in all aspects of fund formation, fund operations, platform and add-on acquisitions, and portfolio company operations. Our team has a reputation for being the go-to-lawyers for private equity funds, hedge funds, venture capital funds and family offices. We are known for our vast deal experience, the efficient way we staff and manage our work, and the way we maintain our relationships. We get deals done with sophisticated, strategic, and practical advice tailored to the needs of our clients.
*Not admitted to practice law.
The state took Betty W.’s three children away from her—said she hadn’t properly cared for them—and in a subsequent lawsuit the trial court terminated all parent-child relationships. Betty appealed, arguing that the trial court should have given her a continuance so she’d have time to get counseling and qualify to get her children back.
The court of appeals noted that Betty had sought a continuance both before and after trial but hadn’t put this issue in a timely “statement of points for appeal” as required by the Family Code to preserve the issue for appeal. Yet the court of appeals addressed the issue anyway, ruling that the Family Code rule violated the Texas Constitution’s “separation of powers” doctrine because it “unduly interferes with our substantive power as an appellate court” to determine preservation of error in the lower court. In re D.W., 249 S.W.3d 625, 640, 645 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth), pet. denied per curiam, 260 S.W.3d 462 (Tex. 2008). In other words, the legislature had encroached upon “judicial power” the Texas Constitution granted to the court in its capacity as an appellate court.
The Texas Constitution vests in various Texas courts the “judicial power” of Texas government. TEX. CONST. art. V, § 1. However, when Texas courts define “judicial power,” they usually do so in terms of trial court powers—e.g., “the power to (1) hear evidence; (2) decide issues of fact raised by the pleadings; (3) decide relevant questions of law; (4) enter a final judgment on the facts and the law; and (5) execute the final judgment or sentence.” State v. Williams, 938 S.W.2d 456, 458-59 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (quoting Armadillo Bail Bonds v. State, 802 S.W.2d 237 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)). But the Texas Constitution also grants judicial power to appellate courts, as suggested with a broader definition of judicial power: “the power of a court to decide and pronounce a judgment and carry it into effect between persons and parties who bring a case before it for a decision.” Morrow v. Corbin, 122 Tex. 553, 558, 564, 62 S.W.2d 641, 644, 646 (1933); see also Eichelberger v. Eichelberger, 582 S.W.2d 395, 398 (Tex. 1979).
The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.
You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander. A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.
Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used. For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.
AND and OR may be used in a search. Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance."
The + and - sign operators may be used. The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".
To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks. For example, "Project Finance".
Searches are not case sensitive.