2007-12-14 Texas Supreme Court Opinions

Dec. 14, 2007 - No dissent, no conflicts jurisdiction, and thus no second bite at the appellate apple in the Texas Supreme Court. The Supremes accordingly dismiss petition for review (albeit previously granted). In addition, Tex. Sup. Ct. addresses appellate jurisdiction over arbitration dispute and PUC's regulatory authority in todays' opinions; also revisits a recently decided case to expressly equate Rule 11 with a statute of frauds in a rare supplemental opinion. Justice Brister offers another sample of independent jurisprudence, this time on a motion for rehearing, also a relatively rare phenomenon. In it, he accuses his colleagues (minus Hecht and Willett, who joined the dissent) of legislating from the bench, a no-no -if not an outright insult - to strict constructionists.

Texas Municipal Power Agency v. PUC, No. 04-0751 (Tex. Dec. 14, 2007)(Green) (regulatory policy, agency authority, statutory construction, declaratory judgment, PUC rate regulation)

TEXAS MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY, CITY OF DENTON, CITY OF GARLAND, AND GEUS F/K/A GREENVILLE ELECTRIC UTILITY SYSTEM v. PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS AND CITY OF BRYAN, TEXAS; from Travis County; 3rd district (03-02-00701-CV, 150 S.W.3d 579, 05/20/2004)— consolidated with —Texas Municipal Power Agency v. PUC, No. 04-0752 (Tex. Dec. 14, 2007)(Green)TEXAS MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY, CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, CITY OF GARLAND, TEXAS, AND CITY OF GREENVILLE, TEXAS v. PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS AND CITY OF BRYAN, TEXAS; from Travis County; 3rd district (03-02-00644-CV, 150 S.W.3d 579, 05/20/2004)

The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment, renders judgment in part, and remands the case in part to the court of appeals. Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, Justice Medina, and Justice Johnson joined. Justice Brister filed a dissenting opinion, Texas Municipal Power Agency v. PUC in which Justice Willett joined.

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Fleming, No. 05-0645 (Tex. Dec. 14, 2007)(per curiam)(petition for review interlocutory appeal dismissed for lack of conflicts jurisdiction; no dissent in the court below)ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, AND ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. CEVIA FLEMING, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED; from Travis County; 3rd district (03-04-00621-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 06/29/2005)The Court withdraws its order of April 21, 2006, granting the petition for review, as the petition was improvidently granted. The petition for review is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Chambers v. John M. O'Quinn, No. 06-1073 (Tex. Dec. 14, 2007)(per curiam) (arbitration, court of appeals erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction to review order compelling arbitration)
BOB CHAMBERS, ET AL. v. JOHN M. O'QUINN, JOHN M. O'QUINN, P.C. AND JOHN M. O'QUINN D/B/A O'QUINN & LAMINACK; from Harris County; 1st district (01-04-01029-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 09/29/2006)The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.

OPINIONS ON DENIAL OF MOTION FOR REHEARING:

Justice Brister Dissents in Lamar Homes, Inc. v. Mid-Century Casualty Co., No. 05-0832 (Tex. Dec. 14, 2007)(Dissent by Brister on motion for rehearing) (insurance law, prompt payment statute, duty to defend, statutory construction)
LAMAR HOMES, INC. v. MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANYJustice Brister delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Hecht and Justice Willett joined.

Knapp Med. Ctr. v. De La Garza II, No. 06-0575 (Tex. Dec. 14, 20o7)(Suppl. per curiam op. on reh'g) (Rule 11 agreement must be in writing and operates as a statute of frauds, claim barred)KNAPP MEDICAL CENTER v. JAVIER E. DE LA GARZA, AND JAVIER E. DE LA GARZA, M.D., P.A.; from Hidalgo County; 13th district (13-04-00269-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 05/25/2006)Supplemental Per Curiam Opinion

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION (DWOJ):

Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Griesing, No. 04-0902 (Tex. Dec. 14, 2007)(per curiam jurisdictional dismissal) (no conflict in the court of appeals below, ergo no conflicts jurisdiction in the supreme court)
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, LM INSURANCE CORPORATION, AND FIRST LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION v. BETTY GRIESING, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED; from Travis County; 3rd district (03-03-00646-CV, 150 S.W.3d 640, 08/26/2004) motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction granted