When filing a personal injury lawsuit, attorneys are sometimes, depending on the state citizenship of the parties, presented with the question of whether filing in state or federal court is more advantageous for their client. While state and federal courts have many similarities, the distinctions between the two may become the difference between winning or losing a case. Prior to filing a suit, an attorney should consider the structure of both court systems, the similarities, and differences between the two, and the perceived advantages and disadvantages of filing your personal injury case in either.
The Structure of State and Federal Court Systems
State Court Systems
In Texas, a state district court has original jurisdiction over all civil claims exceeding $200. This court also referred to as the “trial court,” will be the starting point for an attorney representing a client in a personal injury suit. Following a final judgment by a jury of your peers, objections raised during the course of trial may serve as a basis to refute the final judgment and raise issues from the trial on appeal.
Once appealed, one of the fourteen Texas Courts of Appeals will have the opportunity to review the trial record and briefs submitted by both parties to determine the genuine legal issues in dispute. Every state district court corresponds geographically to one of the thirteen courts of appeals. The briefs submitted by both party’s attorneys argue each side’s legal basis for why the appellate judges should agree or disagree with a determination made by either the Judge or the jury during the trial. Once briefs are reviewed by the panel of appellate justices, the panel may decide to grant an oral argument, which provides the respective attorneys an opportunity to appear in court (or virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic) and leverage the art of oral persuasion to advocate for their client. During oral arguments, the parties come prepared to outline their arguments to the panel and field questions from them in an attempt to persuade the court that their legal position is correct.
After an opinion and order are issued by the appellate court, disgruntled parties may petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court—the highest state court for civil disputes. If this petition is granted, the Texas Supreme Court panel will review both party’s briefs—again outlining their legal basis for disagreeing with the appellate court’s holding. The Texas Supreme Court also has the authority to grant or deny oral arguments; however, it is getting more common, in the interest of judicial efficiency, to issue rulings based solely on the party’s briefs.
Federal Court Systems
Similar to state courts, the federal system begins at the district court level which has original jurisdiction over all cases that can be heard in a federal court. The most common basis for establishing federal jurisdiction in a personal injury case is through the diversity of citizenship—meaning parties to the lawsuit reside in different states. However, in addition to establishing diversity, the amount in controversy must exceed $75k for a federal court to have jurisdiction, a much higher monetary threshold than a state district court.
If a case is brought in a federal district court or removed from a state court to a federal court, the trial process is similar to that of a Texas state court. The jury will deliberate and issue their verdict after both parties have been fully heard on their issues. Again, like state court, issues preserved at trial, typically through objections, are appealable.
On appeal, the federal circuit court tasked with hearing cases from federal district courts within their jurisdiction will receive both party’s briefs, identifying the legal basis for why the appellate court should agree or disagree with the decisions made by the district court. The panel of circuit judges, after reviewing the party’s briefing, may allow oral arguments to get an opportunity to ask questions and form a better understanding of the issues presented. The court may then issue their holding which can take multiple forms:
- The court may reverse or affirm the decision of the lower court in favor of one party.
- The court may remand the case to the trial court with instructions consistent with their holding.
Once a final judgment is issued by a circuit court, a losing party has one final opportunity to appeal their case. This final appeal is requested through a writ of certiorari, which petitions the United States Supreme Court to hear their case. The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions annually, but only hears a hundred or so cases. If four of the nine justices vote to hear the case, the parties will submit a briefing to the Court again outlining their arguments. If an oral argument is granted, the parties have thirty minutes each to present their arguments, which typically consists of answering questions the Justices formed after reviewing the party’s briefs. Once a holding is issued by the Court, it is final and not appealable.
Similarities & Differences Between State and Federal Court
While the structure of the Texas state system has many similarities to its federal counterpart, the devil is in the details. Despite the similarities in the rules governing the admission of evidence and the procedures in each system, there are critical distinctions regarding how judges make their way to the bench, and how juries are selected for trial.
Becoming a Judge
In Texas state court, trial judges have to campaign for election every 4 years, whereas appellate judges must do the same every 6 years. One relatively unique aspect of Texas state judge elections is that candidates for the bench must declare a political party affiliation. One argument frequently cited by those hoping to change this political requirement is that a political affiliation, and reliance upon reelection, may result in a judge ruling on cases based on political ideology rather than on the merits. Thus, an attorney filing a personal injury claim must be aware of various judge’s past rulings, and how those rulings may have been affected by political affiliation, in determining whether to file in state or federal court.
Conversely, federal judges are nominated by the sitting President of the United States and are confirmed by the Senate. A federal judge is appointed for life, and removal from the bench requires impeachment by the House of Representatives and subsequent conviction by the Senate. A federal judge’s lack of official political affiliation may, in theory, allow a more unbiased view of cases. Though a lifetime appointment can produce judges with strong personalities and unique procedures that an attorney must be familiar with before appearing in court.
Jury Selection
One substantial difference between filing a personal injury case in a state or federal court lies in the geographic range from which jurors are selected. For instance, in a state district court, the jurors will be selected from the county being served by that court. Conversely, in a federal district court, the jurors are selected from within the district—a geographical area consisting of many counties which can span hundreds of miles in some instances. This distinction can be significant if the injured party is from a small county where the jurors selected from that county for a state court jury may be more sympathetic and protective of “their own.” Whereas the same small county plaintiff may receive a drastically different jury pool when the selection comes not only from outside of their county but possibly from a county far displaced from their own.
Another distinction in jury selection comes from the attorney’s ability to “vet” potential jurors to ensure they are both fair and impartial. In state court, this process—voir dire—provides both party’s attorneys the ability to question the potential jurors to flush out those with bias or other preconceived notions about how the case should be resolved. In federal court, however, the court may permit the attorneys to examine prospective jurors, or the court may do so. Thus, federal courts are afforded more discretion on whether the Federal Judge will question the jurors, or whether they will defer to the attorneys or both. This allowance may be substantial depending on how a particular federal judge conducts this process as it may vary in thoroughness and detail.
Determining whether to file your case in federal or state court is an important decision to be weighed by you and your attorney. Either way, if a federal court has jurisdiction over your issue, either party may remove a state case to federal court if it is advantageous to do so. Being aware of the differences between the state and federal court systems is critical in determining both where to file your case and in being prepared to present your case. While both systems have their similarities and differences, both are also designed to provide for an unbiased and fair process with opportunities to appeal to higher courts for review. Accordingly, these distinctions are indifferent if you have experienced representation that is prepared to proceed in either system.
Written by:
Lance Kimbro
Law Clerk
WATTS GUERRA LLP
Four Dominion Drive, Bldg. Three, Suite 100
San Antonio, Texas 78257
Phone: (210) 447-0500
Frank Guerra
Board Certified – Personal Injury Law
Texas Board of Legal Specialization
WATTS GUERRA LLP
Four Dominion Drive, Bldg. Three, Suite 100
San Antonio, Texas 78257
Phone: (210) 447-0500
Be sure to follow us on Instagram and Facebook to see more Watts Guerra news!
