Overturning well established law, and its own Rules of Civil Procedure, the Texas Supreme Court now requires a trial judge to say why it is granting a new trial when a jury verdict favors a defendant and is being set aside for a new trial.  In re Columbia Medical Center of Law Colinas, Subsidiary, L.P., --- S.W.3d ---, 2009 WL 1900509 (Tex. 2009).

The ultimate irony is that the majority opinion wraps itself in the shroud of stare decisis and protection of the rights of poor litigants.

We do not lightly alter a status established by our prior decisions. But when the status shields decisions affecting rights such as those relating to jury trials from the view of the parties and the public, we should not hesitate to reconsider it.

Id., at *9.  The Supreme Court ruled for defendants on the same issue in the cases of In Re Baylor Medical Center at Garland, No. 06-0491, 52 Tex. S. Ct. J. 1028. (Tex. 2009), and In Re E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company, No. 08-0625, 52 Tex. S. Ct. J. 1097 (Tex. 2009).

It would be hard to imagine the court being so solicitous of the rights of litigants if the trial court had granted a new trial to a defendant who had suffered a multi-million dollar jury verdict loss.  Consequently, plaintiffs should take little solace in these new cases.