Recusals for Anti-Plaintiff Bias?

In a wrongful death action in the Texas Supreme Court, plaintiffs recently moved for recusal of four justices for anti-plaintiff bias.  Relying heavily this paper by David A. Anderson at University of Texas (Austin), the plaintiffs argue that bias is evident from a couple of factors:  First, defendants won 87% of tort cases in the Texas Supreme Court in 2004 and 2005, a fact that Anderson argues cannot be explained by (1) the court's having left plaintiff victories in the courts of appeals undisturbed; (2) the correction of rogue courts of appeals; or (3) the implementation of tort reform legislation.  Second, defendants prevailed on 18 of 22 petitions alleging that there was "no evidence" to support a jury verdict, notwithstanding that in 17 of those cases the jury, the trial judge, and the court of appeals all found evidence supporting liability.

These are cogent arguments that tort plaintiffs don't get a fair shake in the Texas Supreme Court.  But assuming this motion will not secure the recusal of any justice, what might it accomplish?

Comments

[D. Todd Smith]

The motion was denied last Friday (http://appealsplus.com/talblog/2007/09/21/this-weeks-supreme-court-orders-5/).

[Brian]

Getting bloggers like yourself to publicize it.