Texas Justices Agree on Class

The Supreme Court of Texas held last week that the courts below shouldn't have refused to certify a "takings" case as a class action on the ground that the class representatives couldn't adequately represent the interests of all class members. Riemer v. Patterson, No. 11-0548 (Tex. Feb. 22, 2013).

That doesn't amount to saying the courts below should on remand certify the case as a class action. Only that if they do again decline certification they'll have to find another ground.

The case relates to the "takings" of surface and mineral rights without due process and payment of compensation by virtue of where the State of Texas deemed the boundaries of the Canadian River to lie. The State owns the surface and minerals beneath the bed of streams and therefore has an interest in, shall we say, exaggerating the width of Texas waterways.

Yes, this counts as progress.

Comments

[Max Kennerly]

I dissent from the blog's conclusion this counts as progress. The holding here solely benefits extremely wealthy holders of gas, oil and mineral rights in their efforts to avoid paying a tax. Should the Court be presented with a claim by, say, people whose drinking water was contaminated by the drilling or mining on that same location, I'm sure they would find a way to dismiss it on procedural grounds.

[Blawgletter]

Max, we see your dissent and raise you one Cautionary Note.

Progress in this context means a Court that has almost extinctified class actions applied the class action rule in a way that makes attempting to certify a Texas state court case as a class action less of a fool's errand. Just about all of the Court's class action rulings ere now either decertified a class, upheld a refusal to certify, or affirmed a decertification -- all the while giving little guidance on what set of facts and claims WOULD warrant class treatment.

We get your point about the outcome in this case making the rich richer. And yet we prefer not to look this gift horse in the mouth. Let's see how she runs.