Interesting case out of the Tex. Sup. Ct. today holding that a motion for reconsideration en banc is a motion for reheaing for purposes of the deadline for a PDR (rejecting contrary assertions from members of the cca).
(got links mixed up)

[This message was edited by david curl on 08-31-06 at .]

The link doesn't work, unfortunately.

Try this link:

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2006/aug/050147.htm


Since the disagreement is about the same rules that govern in criminal and civil cases, how is the conflict resolved? Does each court's interpretation stand within the scope of its jurisdiction? Does the SCt's interpretation prevail? Or does the legislature take care of the problem?

I guess they're each entitled to their interpretation -- since they are each the final authority. But one would hope that the cca will defer to the Supreme's better logic.