It is over the other courts … but only in civil matters. In effect, Texas has two supreme courts, one for civil matters and one for criminal matters.
Interestingly, Delaware and Tennessee still have separate courts of law and courts of equity at the lower levels.
Anyway, nomenclature is arbitrary. Why is it that in so many states, the lowest court is the “superior” court? What is it superior to?
Because “families” don’t get to decide whether to lay criminal charges. If the prosecutor doesn’t indict, then a civil claim is the only route to recovery.
Interesting case. Laura Schubert sued the church for the injuries she suffered by being held down for the exorcism and the emotional distress she suffered by being told she had a demon around her.
Before trial, the church said, “Hey, listen. We believe the First Amendment protects us from being sued for telling someone she has a demon. We want an order forbidding any discussion of that point. No one can sue and recover damages from us for telling them they have a demon; that’s just our belief and it’s protected. But she can sue us for the secular acts of holding her down and causing her injury.”
The court agreed. The jury found the church liable for Laura’s injuries.
On appeal, the church said, “You know, that First Amendment dealie ALSO protects us from liability on the carpet burns.”
Shubert’s response was: “Wait a sec. Before trial, you conceded that the carpet burns were a secular issue. You did that so the jury wouldn’t have to hear about your demon theories. Now that you’re past the jury, you want to change your mind?”
Church: “Uh… yeah, that’s about it.”
There’s a rule preventing a party from taking contrary positions in different causes of action, called judicial estoppel. But it doesn’t prevent a party from taking opposite positions in the same lawsuit. Kinda weird, I know. I thought there was a rule preventing opposite positions in the same lawsuit called judicial admissions, but it apparently doesn’t apply here for reasons I can’t quite follow.
They then go on to say that case law generally says that emotional and psychological distress suffered by a person because of some aspect of a church’s theology or beliefs or practices can’t be a predicate for a lawsuit. Basically, the law is that if you get upset, even to the point of needing psychological counseling, because of what a church tells you, too damn bad for you.
Then they say, about Laura’s claims:
In other words, Laura’s case for damages was all about the psychological damage she suffered at being declared demon-possessed, not about the physical injury the church members did to her.
But the holding her down and other physical restraint (it seems to me) was a large part of what caused her psychological problems thereafter.
The idea that they would have done this stuff without her parents being present also blows my mind. In general, I’m in favor of kids this age being treated as adults, but this is one case in which I definitely think that parents should be required to be present!
I’m hoping that the US Supremes will take a different view.
But the evidence at trial – her own testimony – says that her trauma and upset came from the idea of the demon, not so much from the simple fact of being held down. So her own words contradict this view.
The problem is that her physical trauma doesn’t support the idea of a large damages award. She had scrapes and bruises not even severe enough to seek medical attention, and no expert testimony to assert that she suffered any kind of lasting physical damage.
But Bricker, wasn’t it the fact that she was held down and forced to hear again and again the claim that she had a demon inside her the problem? They were restraining her in order to force her to hear this idea. It went beyond speaking to her. The idea may have been what bothered her, but the idea wouldn’t have gotten that much traction if they hadn’t forced her to hear it over the course of some hours, while being held in a fair amount of discomfort at the time. This just seems to me to exceed the boundaries of what I would consider free speech.
There’s no question that their conduct was tortious.
The question is – how much was she damaged by it?
Any damages that she sustained because she was told she was demon-ridden are not recoverable. Her attorneys should have emphasized in their arguments, and evidence, the anguish and distress that she felt from the physical restraint, but they did not.
It is supreme in some respects. The Texas Supreme Court is the administrative head of the State Bar of Texas, the professional organization all Texas lawyers must belong to, and appoints the Board of Law Examiners that administers the Texas Bar Examination. They’re just not the highest court of appeal for criminal matters; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals hears those. The fourteen courts of appeal hear both civil and criminal appeals. Texas probably has the most convoluted court system in the world, no exaggeration.
Well, apparently they did enough for a lower court, but not enough for the Texas Supreme Court.
Tortious? There’s no question that their conduct constituted a torte? Does that mean you think it did? Or that it did not? I’m sorry, but you have to spell things out for the simple minded here. I’m not Really Not All That Bright, but I should be.
Assuming we (and the SCOTSOT) agree that she did suffer physical trauma, what does the size of the resulting damages award have to do with it?
I’m not familiar with civil liability law in Texas (but I’m guessing you aren’t either), but if the problem is simply the scope of the damage, why not simply reduce the award instead of reversing the verdict of the lower court?
Oh, and **Oy! **, I think you mean tort, or an action resulting in civil liability. A torte is a sort of cake thingy.
IANALawyer, but the suggestion is that her evidence as presented dealt entirely with the pyschological damage of getting preached at. If she produced no evidence related to the physical injury, presumably there would be no basis on which to award damages.
It also seems possible that, if she had spun her story a different way, she might have won. Perhaps she might have claimed that her fears and mental scars were related to a feeling of imprisonment as a result of being forcibly restrained. From what Bricker has said, it seems to me that a similar arguement might have prevailed.
Because the plaintiff can’t recover at all for the intangiable damages she claimed. It wasn’t so much the scope of the damages as the type. She had some scrapes and bruises, but her proof of damages at trial was primarily about the emotional trauma she suffered rather than any physical injury. Without the physical aspects of her cause of action the plaintiff essentially had what amounted to a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against a religious organization for engaging in its religious practices, and the defendant was able to waive some U.S. Supreme Court precedent around saying that that’s no bueno under the First Amendment.
That’s why we have State Supreme Courts- so that the jury, which erroneously gave her a verdict based on things it shouldn’t have, doesn’t get away with it.
The jury, seemingly outraged by the “exorcism (in stark contrast to your own view of Texans),” punished the church for telling her she had a demon.
The higher court put that right.
Not saying that the decision sits particularly well with me, or that plaintiff’s counsel did the best job, but the essence of this case is that the Supreme Court got it right.
All hail the Dope! I like a forum where initial (and understandable) RO is gently steered to rational discussion, ignorance is fought, and all come away better for it.
Except for those farkin cheeseheads. I don’t know what can be done about them.
