Here's the link:
http://www.tdcaadistribution.com/newsletter/newsletter.php?10438

Doesn't repeated mean more than once? I'm suprised the court said that was vague in Karenev.

I think that's why it is vague--repeated does MEAN more than once, but would you really think it's a criminal offense to e-mail someone twice? So did they really mean more than once, or did they mean repeated....repeatedly???

We've used this statute more often when there have been multiple messages, some of them threatening and other facts of a threatening nature....but the statute boiled down to it's core and really analyzed, I can see the issues with it. And of course the threats aren't even necessary, they just usually are the reasons why the person reported it to begin with.

I have a real problem with how the COAs post their opinions.

Is there anything that can be done to fix the problem with the formatting errors so that an opinion can be easily read and/or downloaded?

I am specifically referring to the opinion in that email harassment case, but I have also noticed it with other cases as well.

Not very long ago you'd have to wait for the dead tree version.

It looks like they are posting in html crudely formatted from whatever word processor the court is using. We get better versions from the 5th court because they are not using OCA's website architecture or html system, although the first day versions of dallas opinions are pretty crude.

I really wish the coa's would adopt PDF as their standard. Free solutions exist for creating PDF from standard word processing programs.

Still, even if you adopt a better standard, you still have 13 or 14 little agencies, with many many staffers, who need to be trained up to what exactly must be done. Each court formats a little different, with different seals, some electronic signatures, some typed, etc. It's a pretty big task, and alot of opinions going out since it includes the unpubs. The old slip opinion reporter only had published cases.

Many thanks for the info!