tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12815863079521949222024-02-08T05:45:07.829-08:00The Jefferson Court BlogThis blawg covers the Texas Supreme Court from a political perspective. Wallace B. Jefferson is the Court's elected Chief and has not approved any of the comments made here (unless specifically attributed or quoted).WOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.comBlogger199125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281586307952194922.post-76420882999420916442010-06-11T13:49:00.001-07:002010-10-25T22:46:12.319-07:00June 2010 Texas Supreme Court Opinions<strong><span style="COLOR: rgb(204,0,0);font-size:130%;" ><br />JUNE DECISIONS OF THE TEX. SUP. CT. (<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2010-Texas-Supreme-Court-Opinions.html">Tex. 2010</a>) </span></strong><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><strong></strong></span><span class="text"><span style="font-size:100%;"><b><span style="COLOR: rgb(255,51,51)"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 24px"><br /></span></span></b><a style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold" href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/061110.asp"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 24px">Opinions Released June 11, 2010</span></a><b><span style="COLOR: rgb(255,51,51)"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 24px"> </span></span></b><b><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 24px"><br /><br /></span></b><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/jun/070205.pdf"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, No. </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=28122"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">07-0205</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" > (</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/061110.asp"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Tex. Jun. 11, 2010</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >)(</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Willett-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Don-R-Willett.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Willett</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >) (sexual harassment at work)(state statutory cause of action under anti-discrimination law preempts common-law claim)<br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 15px">After being sexually harassed by a coworker, Cathie Williams sued her employer, Waffle House, Inc. for (1) sexual harassment under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA),1 and (2) common-law negligent supervision and retention. The jury found for Williams on both claims, and she elected to recover on the common-law claim, which afforded a far greater monetary recovery.<br />This case poses several issues, including this one of first impression: may a plaintiff recover negligence damages for harassment covered by the TCHRA? Our view is that the TCHRA, the Legislature’s specific and tailored anti-harassment remedy, is preemptive when the complained-of negligence is entwined with the complained-of harassment.<br />Here, the alleged negligence is rooted in facts inseparable from those underlying the alleged harassment. We do not believe the Legislature’s comprehensive remedial scheme allows aggrieved employees to proceed on dual tracks — one statutory and one common-law, with inconsistent procedures, standards, elements, defenses, and remedies.<br />The TCHRA confers both the right to be free from sexual harassment and the remedy to combat it. Where the gravamen of a plaintiff’s case is TCHRA-covered harassment, the Act forecloses common-law theories predicated on the same underlying sexual-harassment facts. The root of Williams’ negligence claim is that Waffle House kept around a known harasser, but this claim does not arise from separate, non-harassment conduct; it is premised on the same conduct that the TCHRA deems unlawful.<br />As the complained-of acts constitute actionable harassment under the TCHRA, they cannot moonlight as the basis for a negligence claim, a claim that presents far different standards, procedures, elements, defenses, and remedies. It is untenable that the Legislature would craft an elaborate anti-harassment regime so easily circumvented. The court of appeals erred in affirming the trial-court judgment on Williams’ common-law claim.<br />Waffle House argued in the court of appeals that the TCHRA should also fail for various reasons if the common-law claim were reversed. The court of appeals did not reach the issues concerning the statutory claim,82 nor were these issues briefed to us. Accordingly, the court of appeals’ judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court to address the statutory sexual-harassment issues raised by Waffle House.<br /></span></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >WAFFLE HOUSE, INC. v. CATHIE WILLIAMS; from Tarrant County; 2nd district (02‑05‑00373‑CV, ___<br />SW3d ___, 02‑01‑07)<br />The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.<br />Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Guzman joined. [</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/jun/070205.pdf"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">pdf</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >]<br />Justice </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/jun/070205d.pdf"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">O'Neill delivered a dissenting opinion</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, in which Justice Medina joined. [</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/jun/070205d.pdf"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">pdf</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >]<br />View </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20070205.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Electronic Briefs in 07-0205 WAFFLE HOUSE, INC. v. WILLIAMS<br /><br /></span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/jun/080799.pdf"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">State Farm Lloyds v. Page</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, No. </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29763"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">08-0799</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" > (Tex. June 11, 2010)(</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-ONeill-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Harriet-O-Neill.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">O'Neill</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >)(insurance coverage, mold<br />damage)<br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 15px">Once again we are called upon to interpret the Texas Standard Homeowner’s Policy—Form B, in this instance to decide whether it affords coverage for mold contamination resulting from plumbing leaks. We hold that when a plumbing leak results in mold contamination, the policy covers mold damage to personal property but not to the dwelling. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment in part, affirm in part, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.<br /></span></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >STATE FARM LLOYDS AND ERIN STRACHAN v. WANDA M. PAGE;<br />from Johnson County; 10th district (10‑07‑00228‑CV, 259 SW3d 257, 06‑11‑08)<br />The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.<br />Justice O'Neill delivered the opinion of the Court. [</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/jun/080799.pdf"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">pdf</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >]<br />View </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080799.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Electronic Briefs in 08-0799 STATE FARM LLOYDS v. PAGE</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" ><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Texas-Dept-of-Crim-Justice-v-McBride-Tex-2010-by-Jefferson-no-sovereign-immunity-waiver-based-on-request-for-award-of-attorneys-fees-for-defense.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Tx. Dep't of Criminal Justice v. McBride</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, No. </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29796"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">08-0832</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" > (Tex. June 11, 2010)(</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Jefferson-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Chief-Justice-Wallace-Jefferson.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Jefferson)<br /></span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >(no waiver of </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-sovereign-immunity.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">governmental/ sovereign immunity</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" > based on defendant's request for attorney's<br />fees)<br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 15px">The Department denied McBride’s allegations, asserted sovereign immunity, and requested attorney’s fees. The trial court granted the Department’s plea and dismissed the case, but the court of appeals reversed, holding that “the Department’s claim for attorney’s fees is considered a claim for affirmative relief that waives sovereign immunity.”1 ___ S.W.3d ___. We disagree.<br />In this case, McBride, not the Department, filed suit. In its answer, the Department denied McBride’s allegations and prayed for attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defending the case. Other than fees and costs, the Department asserted no claims for relief. Unlike Reata, in which the City injected itself into the litigation process and sought damages, the Department’s request for attorney’s fees was purely defensive in nature, unconnected to any claim for monetary relief. When that is the case, a request for attorney’s fees incurred in defending a claim does not waive immunity under Reata, and the court of appeals incorrectly held otherwise.<br /></span></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE v. KIRK WAYNE MCBRIDE, SR.; from Bee County; 13th district (13‑06‑00472‑CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07‑31‑08)<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.<br />Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court. [</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/jun/080832.pdf"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">pdf</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >]<br />View </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080832.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Electronic Briefs 08-0832 TEX. DEPT. OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE v. MCBRIDE</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" ><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/jun/080961.pdf"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Serros de Gonzalez v. Guilbot</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, No. </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29924"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">08-0961</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" > (Tex. Jun. 11, 2010)(Willett)(remand, motions to recuse)<br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 15px">This appeal concerns two issues: (1) the procedure required to revest a state court with jurisdiction after remand from<br />federal court, and (2) the definition of “tertiary recusal motion” in Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 30.016.<br />We agree with the court of appeals that the hand-filing of a remand order in state court is sufficient to transfer jurisdiction back to state court. However, the court of appeals erred in holding that section 30.016’s reference to a “tertiary recusal motion” is limited to a third motion filed by the same party against the same judge. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals’ judgment in part and reverse it in part, and remand to that court with instructions.<br />he court of appeals was right on remand but wrong on recusal. Plaintiffs’ hand-delivery of the certified remand order from the federal district court to the clerk of the state court was sufficient to revest jurisdiction in the state court. We decline Defendants’ invitation to add a measure of rigidity into section 1447(c) that simply is not there. As for recusal, a tertiary recusal motion is a third motion filed by the same party against any judge. That is, the word “third” in section 30.016(a) refers to the motion, not to the judge. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals’ judgment in part, reverse it in part, and remand to the court of appeals. The court of appeals shall abate pending a ruling on the motion to recuse Judge Herman. If the motion is denied, the court of appeals shall affirm the trial court’s judgment. If the motion is granted, the court of appeals shall reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.<br /></span></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >MARIA DEL CARMEN GUILBOT SERROS DE GONZALEZ, ET AL. v. MIGUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ GUILBOT, CARLOS A. GONZALEZ GUILBOT, AND MARIA ROSA DEL ARENAL DE GONZALEZ; from<br />Harris County; 14th district (14‑07‑00047‑CV, 267 SW3d 556, 09‑30‑08) 2 petitions<br />request to take judicial notice dismissed as moot<br />The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.<br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Willett-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Don-R-Willett.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Justice Willett</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" > delivered the opinion of the Court. [</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/jun/080961.pdf"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">pdf</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >]<br />(Justice Guzman not sitting)<br />View </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080961.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Electronic Briefs IN THE ESTATE OF MIGUEL ANGEL LUIS GONZALEZ Y VALLEJO v. GUILBOT<br /><br /></span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-University-of-Houston-v-Barth-Tex-2010-Whistblower-judgment-thrown-out.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">UH v. Barth</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, No. </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29964"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">08-1001</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" > (Tex. June 11, 2010)(per curiam)(jury award in professor's </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-WBA.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">whistleblower suit</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" > against state university thrown out)<br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 15px">[I]n </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-State-of-Texas-and-TxDOT-v-Lueck-Tex-2009-by-Green-WBA-Whistblower-Act-Claim-dismissed.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 15px">State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876, 883 (Tex. 2009)</span></a></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 15px">, we held that “the elements of section 554.002(a) can be considered to determine both jurisdiction and liability.” Accordingly, whether Barth’s reports to University officials are good-faith reports of a violation of law to an appropriate law-enforcement authority is a jurisdictional question. Jurisdiction may be raised for the first time on appeal and may not be waived by the parties. Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 445 (Tex. 1993). The University challenges whether the trial court had jurisdiction. Therefore, without hearing oral argument, Tex. R. App. P. 59.1, we reverse and remand to the court of appeals to determine whether, under the analysis set forth in Lueck, Barth’s claims meet the </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-WBA.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 15px">Whistleblower Act’s jurisdictional requirements for suit against a governmental entity</span></a></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 15px"> and, thus, whether the trial court had jurisdiction over Barth’s suit.<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-University-of-Houston-v-Barth-Tex-2010-Whistblower-judgment-thrown-out.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON v. STEPHEN BARTH</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >; from Harris County; 1st district (01‑06‑00490‑CV,<br />265 SW3d 607, 07‑03‑08)<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.<br />Per Curiam Opinion [</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/jun/081001.pdf"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">pdf</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >]<br />View </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20081001.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Electronic Briefs 08-1001 THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON v. BARTH</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" ><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/jun/090292.pdf"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Zenith Ins. Co. v. Ayala</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, No. </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=30341"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">09-0292</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" > (Tex. June 11, 2010)(</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2010-Per-Curiam-Texas-Supreme-Court-Opinions.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">per curiam</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >)(workers comp)<br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 15px">In this </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-workers-comp.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 15px">workers’ compensation case</span></a></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 15px">, the court of appeals concluded that the carrier waived its right to dispute the extent of the claimant’s compensable injury by failing to adhere to Texas Labor Code section 409.021(c)’s sixty-day deadline. __ S.W.3d __. We recently held that the sixty-day period for challenging compensability does not apply to a dispute over extent of injury. </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-State-Office-of-Risk-Management-v-Lawton-by-Jefferson-workers-comp-compensability-issue-deadline-to-contest.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 15px">State Office of Risk Mgmt. v. Lawton, 295 S.W.3d 646, 649-50 (Tex. 2009)</span></a></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 15px">. In light of Lawton, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings. Because this dispute involves extent of injury, rather than compensability, section 409.021(c)’s sixty-day deadline is inapplicable. Without hearing oral argument, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Tex. R. App. P. 59.1, 60.2(d).<br /></span></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY v. CARMEN AYALA; from Dallas County; 5th district (05‑08‑00276‑CV,<br />___ SW3d ___, 02‑26‑09) as supplemented<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.<br />Per Curiam Opinion [</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/jun/090292.pdf"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">pdf</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >]<br />View </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20090292.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Electronic Briefs 09-0292 ZENITH INS. CO. v. AYALA</span></a><br /><br /><br /></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:14;" ></span></span>WOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281586307952194922.post-69230410381451696582010-05-28T15:08:00.000-07:002010-06-11T13:48:51.114-07:00Debra Lehrmann appointed to Tex. Supreme Court<strong><span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">SUPREME COURT NEWS <span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-WEIGHT: normal"></span></span></strong><br /><br /><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold;color:#000099;" >Texas Governor Appoints Lehrmann as Justice to the Supreme Court of Texas</span><br /><strong><span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)"><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-WEIGHT: normal"><br />[text of press release from Gov's office follows below] <span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold"></span></span></span><br /><br /></strong>May 28, 2010<br /><br />AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry has appointed Debra Lehrmann of Colleyville as justice to the Supreme Court of Texas effective June 21, 2010 for a term to expire at the next general election.<br /><br />Lehrmann is judge of the 360th Judicial District Court and a former associate family law judge in Tarrant County with more than 22 years of service. She is chair-elect of the American Bar Association Family Law Section, a member of the Judicial Section of the State Bar of Texas, a fellow of the American and Texas Bar foundations, and a charter member of the Tarrant County Bar Foundation. Lehrmann is a member of the National Association of Judges, Tarrant County Women’s Bar Association, Tarrant County Bar Association, and Tarrant County Family Bar Association. She is also a member of the Eldon B. Mahon Inn of Court and past president of the Fort Worth/Tarrant County Young Lawyers Association. Lehrmann is a commissioner on the Uniform Law Commission, past president of the Texas Chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliatory Courts, former chair of Tarrant County Adoption Day, and a past board member of the Tarrant County Dispute Resolution Services and Tarrant County Community Enrichment Center’s Open Arms program. She received a bachelor’s degree and a law degree from the University of Texas.WOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281586307952194922.post-86049637331607358902010-05-10T13:46:00.000-07:002010-06-11T13:51:09.034-07:00May 2010 Texas Supreme Court Decisions<span class="text" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="COLOR: rgb(204,0,0)"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 24px"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold"><br /></span></span></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 24px; COLOR: rgb(204,0,0); FONT-WEIGHT: bold">OPINIONS HANDED DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN MAY 2010 </span><span style="COLOR: rgb(204,0,0);font-size:100%;" ><br /></span></span><br /><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/052810.asp"><strong>May 28, 2010</strong></a><br /><span class="text"><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><a style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold" href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/may/090415.pdf"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:14;" >Regenia v. Hidalgo</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:14;" >, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=30461"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:14;" >09-0415</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:14;" > (Tex. 2010) (right to raise argument that could not be raised under prior<br />law) </span></span><br />LEILA REGENIA BROWN HIDALGO v. ALVIN STEVE HIDALGO;<br />from Dallas County; 5th district (05-06-00966-CV, 279 SW3d 456, 02-25-09)<br />Should a party who relies on a then-valid procedural argument in the court of appeals be able to assert substantive arguments if this Court invalidates the procedural argument while the case is pending? We answer yes. ...<br />When Leila briefed her case to the court of appeals, she made a legally meritorious procedural argument that Order 3 was void as untimely. Further, the court of appeals at that time had no reason to reach the substantive merits of a jurisdictionally void order. Due to the timing of events, Leila is confronted with a trial court judgment that she believes is substantively defective, but she has not had the opportunity to have those arguments heard on appeal. In light of a change in the law and in the interest of justice, Leila should be allowed to argue to the court of appeals the substantive reasons she believes the trial court’s judgment was erroneous.<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.<br /><span class="text"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:14;" >Per Curiam Opinion [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/may/090415.pdf"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:14;" >pdf</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:14;" >]<br />View </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20090415.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:14;" >Electronic Briefs in No. 09-0415 HIDALGO v. HIDALGO</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:14;" > </span></span><br /><br /><span class="text"><span style="font-size:100%;"><a style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold" href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/may/090772.pdf"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:14;" >Texas Health Insurance Risk Pool v. Sigmundik</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:14;" ><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">,</span></span> No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=30816"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:14;" >09-0772</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:14;" > </span></span>(<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2010-Per-Curiam-Texas-Supreme-Court-Opinions.html">Tex. 2010</a>) (reduction ordered in recovery of wrongful death plaintiffs in favor of contractual subrogation rights of insurer who paid medical bill incurred before injured worker died; amount to be determined on remand)<br />TEXAS HEALTH INSURANCE RISK POOL v. SHARON B. SIGMUNDIK, BENJAMIN J. SIGMUNDIK AND ZACHARY P. SIGMUNDIK, AS THE SOLE AND LEGAL HEIRS AND BENEFICIARIES OF THOMAS M. SIGMUNDIK, DECEASED, AND/OR OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS M. SIGMUNDIK, DECEASED; OTTO L. MONECKE AND VIRGINIA L. MONECKE;<br />from Fayette County; 3rd district (03-05-00057-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07-31-09)<br />As we noted in Fortis Benefits, “contract rights generally arise from contract language; they do not derive their validity from principles of equity but directly from the parties’ agreement.” 234 S.W.3d at 647. Here, the trial court acknowledged the subrogation provision, quoted it in full, and then denied any distribution of funds based upon the provision. While the trial court was free to exercise some discretion in dividing the settlement funds, it abused its discretion by awarding the Risk Pool nothing. The “made whole” doctrine has no application in this case. Accordingly, in light of our Fortis Benefits decision and without hearing oral argument in this case, we grant the petition for review, reverse the court of appeals’ judgment, and remand to the trial court to determine what portion of the settlement funds should be allocated to the estate. See Tex. R. App. P. 59.1. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.<br /><span class="text"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:14;" >Per Curiam Opinion [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/may/090772.pdf"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:14;" >pdf</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:14;" >]<br />View </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20090772.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:14;" >Electronic Briefs in No. 09-0772 TEX. HEALTH INS. RISK POOL v. SIGMUNDIK</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:14;" ><br /></span></span><br /><span class="text" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/051410.asp"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 24px">May 14, 2010</span></a></span><b><span style="COLOR: rgb(255,51,51)"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 24px"><br /><br /></span></span></b><a style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-State-of-Texas-v-281430-in-US-currency-by-ONeill-civil-forfeiture-money-hidden-in-truck.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">State of Texas v. $281,430</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29446"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">08-0465</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> (Tex. May 14, 2010)</span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-ONeill-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Harriet-O-Neill.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">O'Neill</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">) </span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-forfeiture.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">civil forfeiture case</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">, truck driver fail</span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">ed</span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> to show entitlement to money hidden in truck and unclaimed by<br />owner)<br />THE STATE OF TEXAS v. $281,420.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY; from Hidalgo County; 13th district (13-06-00158-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 04-03-08)<br />The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.<br />Justice O'Neill delivered the opinion of the Court [pdf]<br />View </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080465.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">E</span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080465.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">-</span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080465.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Briefs</span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080465.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> in No. 08-0465 THE STATE OF TEXAS v. $281,420.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> </span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"><br /><br /></span><a style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Traverlers-Insurance-Co-v-Joachim-Tex-2010-by-Green-res-judicata-of-dismissal-after-nonsuit.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">, No. 08-0941 (</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/051410.asp"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Tex. May 14, 2010</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Green-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Paul-Green.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Green</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">) (erroneous order dismissing suit after </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-nonsuit.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">nonsuit</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> with prejudice [instead of without prejudice] held to have </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-res-judicata-doctrine.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">res judicata effect</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> in the absence of direct attack by appeal or bill of review)</span></span><span class="text"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:14;" ><br />Texas Supreme Court holds that because trial court has jurisdiction to enter orders dismissing a case with prejudice upon filing of a notice of nonsuit, the trial court’s order in this case was voidable, not void, and subject only to direct attack. There was no direct attack by appeal or bill of review in this case; therefore, the dismissal order became a final determination on the merits for purposes of res judicata, which provides affirmative defense in re-filed suit barring relitigation of the underlying claim). The supreme court reverses and renders judgment dismissing the case with prejudice.</span></span><br /><span class="text" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY (THE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD CONNECTICUT) v. BARRY JOACHIM; from Lubbock County; 7th district (07-06-00322-CV, 279 SW3d 812, 09-25-08)<br />The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.<br />Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court. [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/may/080941.pdf"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">pdf</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">]<br /></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">See</span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080941.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Electronic Briefs </span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080941.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">in Cause No. 08-0941 THE TRAVELERS INS. CO. v. JOACHIM</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><a style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold" href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/050710.asp"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 24px">May 7, 2010</span></a></span><b><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,255)"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 24px"><br /></span></span></b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><a style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Eri-Consulting-Engineers-Inc-v-Swinnea-Tex-2010-by-Green-equitable-forfeiture-remedy-for-breach-of-fiduciary-duty.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Eri Consulting Engineers, Inc. v. Swinnea</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=28950"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">07-1042</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> (</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/050710.asp"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Tex. May 7, 2010</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Green-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Paul-Green.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Green</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">) (equitable </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-forfeiture.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">forfeiture</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> as remedy for </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-breach-of-fiduciary-duty.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">breach of fiduciary duty</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">)<br />ERI CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. AND LARRY G. SNODGRASS v. J. MARK SWINNEA, BRADY ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., AND MALMEBA COMPANY, LTD.; from Smith County;<br />12th district (12‑05‑00428‑CV, 236 SW3d 825, 08‑30‑07)<br />The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Green-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Paul-Green.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Justice Green</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> delivered the opinion of the Court. [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/may/071042.pdf"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">pdf</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">]<br />See </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20071042.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Electronic Briefs in</span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20071042.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> ERI CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. v. SWINNEA</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"><br /><br /></span><a style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Klein-MD-and-BCM-v-Hernandez-by-Medina-ILA-interlocutory-appeal-based-on-denial-of-immunity-defense-government-employee-status.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Klein, MD and BCM v. Hernandez</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29434"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">08-0453</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> (</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/050710.asp"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Tex. May 7, 2010</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">)(Medina) (medical resident at private state-supported medical school working in public hospital entitled to bring </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-ILA.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">interlocutory appeal of denial of summary judgment motion based on immunity defense</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">)<br />GEOFFREY KLEIN, M.D. AND BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE v. CYNTHIA HERNANDEZ, AS THE PARENT AND NEXT FRIEND OF N.H., A MINOR; from Harris County;<br />1st district (01‑06‑00569‑CV, 260 SW3d 1, 04‑17‑08) 2 petitions<br />The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Medina-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-David-Medina.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Justice Medina</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> delivered the opinion of the Court. [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/may/080453.pdf"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">pdf</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">]<br />Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion. [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/may/080453c.pdf"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">pdf</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">]<br />See </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080453.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Electronic Briefs in</span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080453.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> GEFFREY KLEIN, M.D. and BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE v. HERNANDEZ<br /><br /></span></a><a style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Zimmerman-MD-v-Gonzalez-Anaya-Tex-2010-ILA-right-to-interlocutory-appeal-based-on-denial-of-immunity-defense-medical-resident.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Zimmerman, MD v. Gonzalez Anaya</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29559"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">08-0580</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> </span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">(Tex. May 7, 2010)(per curiam) (right to </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-ILA.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">interlocutory appeal</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> of medical resident of state-supported medical school; government employee status)<br />GEOFFREY ZIMMERMAN, M.D. v. WENDY GONZALEZ ANAYA, INDIVIDUALLY AND A/N/F OF CHRISTOPHER GABRIEL HERNANDEZ, DECEASED; from Harris County;<br />1st district (01‑07‑00570‑CV, ___ SW3d ___, 06‑05‑08)<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.<br />Per Curiam Opinion [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/may/080580.pdf"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">pdf</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">]<br />See </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080580.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Electronic Briefs in</span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080580.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> GEOFFREY ZIMMERMAN, M.D. v. ANAYA</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"><br /><br /></span><a style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Scott-and-White-Memorial-Hospital-v-Fair-Tex-2010-by-Jefferson-premises-liability-ice-on-on-grounds-slip-and-fall.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Scott and White Memorial Hospital v. Fair</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29933"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">08-0970</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> (</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/050710.asp"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Tex. May 7, 2010</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Jefferson-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Chief-Justice-Wallace-Jefferson.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Jefferson</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">)<br />(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-premises-liability.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">premises liability</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">, ice on premises)<br />SCOTT AND WHITE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND SCOTT, SHERWOOD AND BRINDLEY FOUNDATION v. GARY FAIR AND LINDA FAIR; from Bell County;<br />3rd district (03‑06‑00211‑CV, ___ SW3d ___, 06‑13‑08)<br />The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment in part and renders judgment.<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Jefferson-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Chief-Justice-Wallace-Jefferson.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Chief Justice Jefferson</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> delivered the opinion of the Court. [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/may/080970.pdf"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">pdf</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">]<br />See </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080970.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Electronic Briefs in</span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080970.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> SCOTT AND WHITE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL v. FAIR<br /><br /></span></a><a style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-In-Re-Ensco-Offshore-International-Tex-2010-PC-forum-non-convenies-FNC-mandamus-granted.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">In Re Ensco Offshore Int'l Co.</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=30365"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">09-0317</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> </span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">(Tex. May 7, 2010)(per curiam) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-forum-non-conveniens.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">forum non conveniens</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> mandamus granted)<br />IN RE ENSCO OFFSHORE INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, ENSCO INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED AND ENSCO OFFSHORE COMPANY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF CHILES OFFSHORE, INC.; from Dallas County;<br />5th district (05‑08‑01092‑CV, ___ SW3d ___, 08‑19‑08)<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants the writ of mandamus.<br />Per Curiam Opinion [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20090317.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">pdf</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">]<br />See </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20090317.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Electronic Briefs in</span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20090317.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> IN RE ENSCO OFFSHORE INTERNATIONAL CO</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">.<br /><br /></span><a style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-City-of-Dallas-v-Carbaja-Tex-2010-PC-TTCA-police-report-of-indicident-not-actual-notice.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">City of Dallas v. Carbajal</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=30473"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">09-0427</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> (</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/050710.asp"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Tex. May 7, 2010</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">)(per curiam) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-TTCA.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">TTCA Tort Claims Act</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-notice-of-claim.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">presuit notice requirement</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">, police report held insufficient to constitute actual notice)<br />CITY OF DALLAS v. OLIVIA J. CARBAJAL; from Dallas County;<br />5th district (05-08-00500-CV, 278 SW3d 802, 01-22-09)<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.<br />Per Curiam Opinion [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/may/090427.pdf"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">pdf</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">]<br />See </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20090427.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Electronic Briefs in</span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20090427.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> CITY OF DALLAS v. CARBAJAL<br /><br /></span></a><a style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-In-Re-Odyssey-Healthcare-Inc-Tex-2010-PC-arbitration-mandamus-granted-in-workplace-injury-case-against-nonsubscriber.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">In Re Odyssey Healthcare, Inc.</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">,</span> No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=30830"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">09-0786</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> (</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/050710.asp"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Tex. May 7, 2010</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">) (per curiam opinion) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-arbitration-mandamus.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">arbitration mandamus granted</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> in </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-arbitration-non-signatories.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">employment injury case against nonsubscriber employer</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">, challenges to </span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">IN RE ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE, INC. AND GEORGE PORTILLO; from El Paso County;8th district (08-09-00174-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 08-12-09) stay order issued October 9, 2009, lifted<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants the writ of mandamus.<br />Per Curiam Opinion [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/may/090786.pdf"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">pdf</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">]<br />See </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20090786.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Electronic Briefs in</span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20090786.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> IN RE ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE, INC</span></a>.WOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281586307952194922.post-11022824706324102872010-05-10T13:41:00.000-07:002010-05-10T13:46:22.618-07:00APRIL 2010 Texas Supreme Court Decisions<span class="text"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/042310.asp"><b><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="line-height: 24px;font-size:20px;" >April 23, 2010</span></span></b></a><b><span style="font-size:130%;color:#0000ff;"><span style="line-height: 24px;font-size:20px;" > <br /><br /></span></span></b><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/apr/080958.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >Presidio ISD v. Scott</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" > </span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >(pdf), </span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29921"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >08-0958</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" > (</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/042310.asp"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >Tex.</span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/042310.asp"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" > Apr. 23</span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/042310.asp"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >, 2010</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >)(Guzman)(education law, teacher disciplinary administrative appeals)<br />PRESIDIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. ROBERT SCOTT, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION; from Travis County;<br />3rd district (03-07-00319-CV, 266 SW3d 531, 08-28-08)<br />The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.<br />Justice Guzman delivered the opinion of the Court. [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/apr/080958.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >pdf</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >]<br />See </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080958.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >Electronic Briefs in </span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080958.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >PRESIDIO ISD v. ROBERT SCOTT, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION<br /><br /></span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/041610.asp"><b><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="line-height: 24px;font-size:20px;" >April 16, 20</span></span></b></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/041610.asp"><b><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="line-height: 24px;font-size:20px;" >10</span></span></b></a><b><span style="font-size:130%;color:#0000ff;"><span style="line-height: 24px;font-size:20px;" > <br /><br /></span></span></b><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/apr/040607.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >In Re The John G. and Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=25173"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >04-0607</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" > (</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/041610.asp"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >Tex. Apr. 16, 2010</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >) (Green)<br />IN RE THE JOHN G. AND MARIE STELLA KENEDY MEMORIAL FOUNDATION; from Kenedy County;<br />13th district (13-04-00337-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07-06-04)<br />as reinstated<br />- consolidated for oral argument with -<br /></span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=25174"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >04-0608</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" > IN RE FROST NATIONAL BANK, FORMER EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ELENA SUESS KENEDY, DECEASED; FROST NATIONAL BANK AND PABLO SUESS, TRUSTEES OF THE JOHN G. KENEDY, JR. CHARITABLE TRUST; AND THE MISSIONARY OBLATE FATHERS OF TEXAS; from Kenedy County; 13th district (13-04-00339-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07-06-04)<br />as reinstated, stay order issued July 8, 2004, lifted<br />The Court conditionally grants the writs of mandamus.<br />Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court. [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/apr/040607.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >pdf</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >]<br />(Justice O'Neill and Justice Guzman not sitting)<br />See </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20040608.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >Electronic Briefs in</span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20040608.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" > IN RE FROST NAT'L BANK<br /><br /></span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/apr/080528.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >John G. and Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation v. Fernandez</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29508"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >08-0528</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" > (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2010-Texas-Supreme-Court-Opinions.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >Tex. 2010</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >) (Green)<br />THE JOHN G. AND MARIE STELLA KENEDY MEMORIAL FOUNDATION v. ANN M. FERNANDEZ;<br />from Nueces County; 13th district (13-06-00170-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 05-22-08)<br />unopposed motion to expedite dismissed as moot<br />The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.<br />Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court. [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/apr/080528.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >pdf</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >]<br />(Justice O'Neill and Justice Guzman not sitting)<br />See Electronic Briefs in </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29508"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >08-0528</span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080528.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" > THE JOHN G. AND MARIE STELLA KENEDY MEMORIAL FOUND. v. </span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080528.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >FERNANDEZ</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" ><br /><br /></span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/apr/080529.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >John G. and Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation v. Fernandez</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29509"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >08-0529</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" > (</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/041610.asp"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >Tex. Apr. 16, 2010</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >) (Green)<br />THE JOHN G. AND MARIE STELLA KENEDY MEMORIAL FOUNDATION v. ANN M. FERNANDEZ; from Kenedy County;<br />13th district (13-06-00539-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 05-22-08)<br />unopposed motion to expedite dismissed as moot<br />The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.<br />Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court. [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/apr/080529.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >pdf</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >]<br />(Justice O'Neill and Justice Guzman not sitting)<br />See </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080529.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >Electronic Briefs in </span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080529.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >THE JOHN G. AND MARIE STELLA KENEDY MEMORIAL FOUND. v. </span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080529.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >FERNANDEZ</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" > <br /><br /></span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/apr/080534.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >Frost National Bank v. Fernandez</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29514"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >08-0534</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" > (</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/041610.asp"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >Tex. Apr. 16, 2010</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >)(Green)<br />FROST NATIONAL BANK, FORMER EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ELENA SUESS KENEDY, DECEASED, AND FROST NATIONAL BANK AND PABLO SUESS, TRUSTEES OF THE JOHN G. KENEDY, JR. CHARITABLE TRUST v. ANN M. FERNANDEZ; from Kenedy County;<br />13th district (13-06-00149-CV, 267 SW3d 75, 05-22-08)<br />unopposed motion to expedite dismissed as moot <br />The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.<br />Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court. [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/apr/080534.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >pdf</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >]<br />(Justice O'Neill and Justice Guzman not sitting)<br />See Electronic Briefs in</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29514"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" > 08-0534</span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080534.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" > FROST NAT'L BANK v. FERNANDEZ<br /><br /></span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-In-Re-Lisa-Laser-USA-Inc-Tex-2010-PC-forum-selection-clause-enforced-by-mandamus.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >In Re Lisa Laser USA, Inc.</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >, No. 09-0557 (</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/041610.asp"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >Tex. Apr. 16, 2010</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >)(per curiam)</span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" ><br />(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-forum-selection.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >forum selection clause</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" > enforced by mandamus) </span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" ><br />IN RE LISA LASER USA, INC. AND LISA LASER PRODUCTS, OHG.; from Travis County;<br />3rd district (03-09-00240-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 05-15-09) <br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants the writ of mandamus.<br />Per Curiam Opinion [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/apr/090557.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >pdf</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >]<br />(Justice Hecht not sitting)<br />eBriefs N/A <br /><br /></span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/040910.asp"><b><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="line-height: 24px;font-size:20px;" >April 9, 2010</span></span></b></a><b><span style="font-size:130%;color:#0000ff;"><span style="line-height: 24px;font-size:20px;" ><br /><br /></span></span></b><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Zinc-Nacional-SA-v-Bouche-Trucking-Inc-Tex-2010-PC-foreign-defendant-minimum-contacts-no-specific-jurisdiction.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >Zinc Nacional, S.A. v. Bouche Trucking, Inc</span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/apr/090734.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >.</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=30778"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >09-0734</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" > (</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/040910.asp"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >Tex. April 9, 2010</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >)(per curiam)<br />(negligence case, non-resident defendant did not have minimum contacts with Texas for purposes of establishing specific jurisdiction by using a third-party trucking service to transport its goods through Texas to an out-of-state customer)<br />ZINC NACIONAL, S.A. v. BOUCHÉ TRUCKING, INC.; from El Paso County; 8th district (08-07-00314-CV, 296 SW3d 763, 07-31-09)<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.<br />Per Curiam Opinion [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/apr/090734.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >pdf</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >]<br />See </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20090734.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >Electronic Briefs in</span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20090734.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" > ZINC NACIONAL, S.A. v. BOUCHÉ TRUCKING, INC</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >.<br /><br /></span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/040210.asp"><b><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="line-height: 24px;font-size:20px;" >April 2, 2010</span></span></b></a><b><span style="font-size:130%;color:#0000ff;"><span style="line-height: 24px;font-size:20px;" ><br /><br /></span></span></b><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/apr/061022.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=27817"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >06-1022</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" > (</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/040210.asp"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >Tex. April 2, 2010</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >)(Willett)<br />(bar owner’s liability for injuries caused when one patron assaulted another during a closing-time melee involving twenty to forty “very intoxicated” customers)<br />DEL LAGO PARTNERS, INC., AND DEL LAGO PARTNERS, L.P. DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE ASSUMED NAME OF DEL LAGO GOLF RESORT & CONFERENCE CENTER, AND BMC-THE BENCHMARK MANAGEMENT COMPANY v. BRADLEY SMITH; from Montgomery County; 10th district (10-04-00252-CV, 206 SW3d 146, 10-11-06)<br />The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.<br />Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice O'Neill, Justice Medina, Justice Green, and Justice Guzman joined. [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/apr/061022.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >pdf</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >]<br />Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Johnson joined. [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/apr/061022d.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >pdf</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >]<br />Justice Wainwright delivered a dissenting opinion. [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/apr/061022d2.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >pdf</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >]<br />Justice Johnson delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Hecht joined. [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/apr/061022d3.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >pdf</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >]<br />See </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20061022.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" >Electronic Briefs in</span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20061022.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14px;" > DEL LAGO PARTNERS, INC. v. SMITH<br /></span></a></span>WOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281586307952194922.post-22797394756870152262010-03-26T11:07:00.000-07:002010-05-10T13:41:25.815-07:00March 2010 Texas Supreme Court Decisions<span class="text" style="font-size:100%;"><b><span style="color: rgb(255, 51, 51);"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">MARCH 2010 TEXAS SUPREME COURT OPINIONS:<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">Mandamus power asserted ever more forcefully in the absence of interlocutory jurisdiction </span></span></span></span></b><b><span style="color: rgb(255, 51, 51);"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></b><b><span style="color: rgb(255, 51, 51);"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></b><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/032610.asp"><b><span style="line-height: 24px;">March 26, 2010</span></b></a><b><span style="color: rgb(255, 51, 51);"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></b><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Poor Giant - - Deserving of Supreme Sympathy</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">Insurance and Financial Services Giant <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAA">USAA</a> had already "endured" one trial in employment discrimination suit (lost on the merits, then won for jurisdictional reasons on appeal); therefor extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant supreme intervention by mandamus in subsequent proceeding in court of proper jurisdiction.So the Supremes have opined. Who is to say otherwise. </span><br /><br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-In-re-USAA-Tex-2010-by-Jefferson-mandamus-granted-re-denial-of-summary-judgment-motion.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">TEXAS SUPREME COURT AGAIN EXPANDS MANDAMUS POWERS - TELLS TRIAL COURT HOW TO RULE ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT</span>: In re USAA</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">.<br />No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=28780"><span style="line-height: 17px;">07-0871</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (Tex. Mar. 26, 2010)(Jefferson)(tolling of limitations if case filed in court without jurisdiction (based on amount in controversy), then refiled in court of proper jurisdiction depends on willfulness, state of mind, of plaintiff)(interlocutory order denying motion for summary judgment not appealable; mandamus granted instead)<br />IN RE UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION; from Bexar County;<br />4th district (04-07-00464-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 10-17-07)<br />The Court conditionally grants the writ of mandamus.<br />Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court. [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/mar/070871.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;">pdf</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">]<br />(Justice Johnson not sitting)<br />View </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20070871.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Electronic Briefs in NO. 07-0871 IN RE UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION (USAA)</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br /><br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-In-re-Laibe-Corp-Tex-2010-PC-forum-selection-clause-enforced-by-mandamus.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">ANOTHER MANDAMUS GRANTED TO OUTSOURCE LITIGATION TO OTHER STATE PER CONTRACTUAL FORUM SELECTION</span><br />In re Laibe Corp.</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=30472"><span style="line-height: 17px;">09-0426</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (Tex. Mar. 26, 2010)(per curiam) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-forum-selection.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">contractual forum selection enforced by mandamus</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-laches.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">laches waiver argument</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> rejected)<br />IN RE LAIBE CORPORATION; from Wise County;<br />2nd district (02-09-00089-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 04-24-09)<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants the writ of mandamus.<br />Per Curiam Opinion [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/mar/090426.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;">pdf</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">]<br />View </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20090426.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Electronic Briefs in No. 09-0426 IN RE LAIBE CORPORATION</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br /></span><b><span style="color: rgb(255, 51, 51);"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></b><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/031210.asp"><b><span style="line-height: 26px;">March 12, 2010</span></b></a><b><span style="line-height: 26px;"><br /><br /></span></b><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-East-Texas-Salt-Water-Disposal-Co-Inc-v-Werline-by-Hecht-rearbitration-order-appealability.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">HIGH COURT SPLITS ON APPEALEABILITY OF TRIAL COURT'S ARBITRATION DO-OVER ORDER</span><br /></span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-East-Texas-Salt-Water-Disposal-Co-Inc-v-Werline-by-Hecht-rearbitration-order-appealability.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">East Texas Salt Water Disposal Co., Inc. v. Werline</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=28052"><span style="line-height: 17px;">07-0135</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (Tex. Mar. 12, 2010) (Hecht)<br />(appealability of order ordering re-arbitration under TGAA)<br />EAST TEXAS SALT WATER DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC. v. RICHARD LEON WERLINE; from Gregg County; 6th district (06-06-00039-CV, 209 SW3d 888, 12-18-06)<br />The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.<br />Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, Justice Johnson, Justice Willett, and Justice Guzman joined. [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/mar/070135.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;">pdf</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">]<br />Justice </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-East-Texas-Salt-Water-Disposal-Co-Inc-v-Werline-Concur-by-Willett-TGAA-appeal-denial-of-confirmation-rearbitration-order.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Willett delivered a concurring opinion</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">. [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/mar/070135c.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;">pdf</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">]<br />Chief </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-East-Texas-Salt-Water-Disposal-Co-Inc-vs-Werline-Jefferson-Dissent-TAA-appealability-denial-of-confirmation-rearbitration-order.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Justice Jefferson delivered a dissenting opinion</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/mar/070135d.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;">pdf</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">], in which Justice Medina and Justice Green joined. [pdf]<br />View </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20070135.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Electronic Briefs in 07-0135 EAST TEX. SALT WATER DISPOSAL, CO., INC. v. WERLINE</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br /><br /></span><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Spir-Star-AG-v-Kimich-by-Jefferson-personal-jurisdition-foreign-manufacturer-product-liability.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">PRODUCT LIABILITY SUIT AGAINST GERMAN COMPANY IN TEXAS GETS OKAY</span></a><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Spir-Star-AG-v-Kimich-by-Jefferson-personal-jurisdition-foreign-manufacturer-product-liability.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Spir Star AG v. Kimich</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=28254"><span style="line-height: 17px;">07-0340</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (Tex. Mar. 12, 2010)(Jefferson)</span><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br /></span><span style="line-height: 17px;">(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-special-appearance.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">personal jurisdiction</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> in Texas over German corporation operating through distributor)<br />SPIR STAR AG v. LOUIS KIMICH; from Harris County;<br />1st district (01-06-00129-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 02-08-07)<br />The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.<br />Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court. [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/mar/070340.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;">pdf</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">]<br />View </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20070340.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Electronic Briefs in 07-0340 SPIR STAR AG v. KIMICH<br /></span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-TXI-Transportation-Co-v-Hughes-by-Medina-illegal-immigrant-status-of-defendant-in-wreck-suit-prejudicial-new-trial.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">[ILLEGAL] ALIENS ARE HUMANS TOO: EVEN A LIBERAL ARGUMENT WILL DO IF IT SERVES TO OVERTURN JURY AWARD IN A PI CASE</span><br /></span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-TXI-Transportation-Co-v-Hughes-by-Medina-illegal-immigrant-status-of-defendant-in-wreck-suit-prejudicial-new-trial.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">TXI Transportation Co. v. Hughes</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=28454"><span style="line-height: 17px;">07-0541</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (Tex. Mar. 12, 2010)(illegal immigrant status of defendant's driver in truck-car collision case held prejudicial in jury trial; new trial ordered)<br />TXI TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, ET AL. v. RANDY HUGHES, ET AL.; from Wise County; 2nd district (02-04-00242-CV, 224 SW3d 870, 05-24-07)<br />The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.<br />Justice Medina delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice O'Neill, Justice Green, Justice Willett, and Justice Guzman joined, and in Part III of which Justice Wainwright joined. [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/mar/070541.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;">pdf</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">]<br />Justice </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-TXI-Transportation-Co-v-Hughes-Sep-op-by-Wainwright-expert-opinion-in-deadly-truck-wreck-suit-prejudicial-new-trial.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Wainwright delivered an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">. [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/mar/070541cd.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;">pdf</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">]<br />(Justice Johnson not sitting)<br />View </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20070541.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Electronic Briefs in 07-0541 TXI TRANSPORTATION CO. v. HUGHES</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br /><br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Texas-Department-of-Insurance-v-Reconveyance-Services-Inc-PC-no-ultra-vires-claim-against-state-agency-sovereign-immunity.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">GO SUE A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL: AGENCY ITSELF IMMUNE TO ULTRA VIRES CLAIM</span><br /></span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Texas-Department-of-Insurance-v-Reconveyance-Services-Inc-PC-no-ultra-vires-claim-against-state-agency-sovereign-immunity.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">TxDoI v. Reconveyance Services, Inc</span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Texas-Department-of-Insurance-v-Reconveyance-Services-Inc-PC-no-ultra-vires-claim-against-state-agency-sovereign-immunity.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">.</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=28695"><span style="line-height: 17px;">07-0786</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (Tex. Mar. 12, 2010)(per curiam) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-governmental-immunity.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">s</span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-governmental-immunity.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">overeign and governmental immunity</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, plaintiff should have brought </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-ultra-vires.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">ultra vires claim against agency </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-ultra-vires.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">official</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, agency itself enjoys </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-sovereign-immunity.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">sovereign immunity</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-governmental-entities-state-agencies.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">government entity entitled to grant of plea to the </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-governmental-entities-state-agencies.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">jurisdition</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">)<br />TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE v. RECONVEYANCE SERVICES, INC.; from Travis County; 3rd district (03-06-00313-CV, 240 SW3d 418, 08-31-07)<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.<br />Per Curiam Opinion [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/mar/070786.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;">pdf</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">]<br />View </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20070786.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Electronic Briefs in 07-0786 TEX. DEPT. OF INS. v. RECONVEYANCE SERVICES, INC</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">.<br /><br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Spectrum-Healthcare-Resources-Inc-v-McDaniel-by-Green-agreement-to-extend-deadline-to-file-expert-report-in-med-mal-suit-nullified.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">GOTCHA JURISPRUDENCE:</span> Supreme Court says agreement to extend deadline did not really extend deadline, therefor Defendant in med-mal suit is entitled to dismissal (Plaintiff should have expected it based on Court's previous jurisprudential antics)<br /></span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Spectrum-Healthcare-Resources-Inc-v-McDaniel-by-Green-agreement-to-extend-deadline-to-file-expert-report-in-med-mal-suit-nullified.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Spectrum Healthcare Resources, Inc. v. McDaniel</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=28696"><span style="line-height: 17px;">07-0787</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (Tex. Mar. 12, 2010)(Green) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-HCLC.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">med-mal suit, health care liability</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-Rule-11-TRCP-11.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">agreement</span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-Rule-11-TRCP-11.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;"> by agreed docket control order</span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-Rule-11-TRCP-11.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;"> to extend deadline</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> for expert report nullified)<br />SPECTRUM HEALTHCARE RESOURCES, INC., AND MICHAEL SIMS v. JANICE MCDANIEL AND PATRICK MCDANIEL; from Bexar County; 4th district (04-06-00185-CV, 238 SW3d 788, 08-22-07)<br />The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and reinstates the trial court's judgment.<br />Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice Johnson, Justice Willett, and Justice Guzman joined. [pdf]<br />Chief Justice </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Spectrum-Healthcare-Resources-Inc-v-McDaniel-Dissent-by-Jefferson-agreed-docket-control-order-and-med-mal-expert-report-deadline.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Jefferson delivered a dissenting opinion</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (disagreeing on fairness of retroactive effect of new rule on unsuspecting plaintiff), in which Justice O'Neill and Justice Medina<br />joined. [pdf]<br />View </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20070787.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Electronic Briefs in 07-0787 SPECTRUM HEALTHCARE RESOURCES, INC. v. MCDANIEL<br /><br /></span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Walters-v-Cleveland-Regional-Medical-Center-by-Willett-HCLC-SoL-open-courts-argument-surgical-sponge-left-in-body-case.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">First Court of Appeals tried to outsupreme the Supremes on behalf of med-mal defendants: SoL does not bar med-mal suit over surgical sponge left in body and undiscovered for more than 2 years after all -- but only for so many years (see below):</span><br /></span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Walters-v-Cleveland-Regional-Medical-Center-by-Willett-HCLC-SoL-open-courts-argument-surgical-sponge-left-in-body-case.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Walters v. Cleveland Regional Medical Center</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29152"><span style="line-height: 17px;">08-0169</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (Tex. Mar. 12, 2010)(Willett) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-HCLC.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">medical malpractice</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, surgical sponge left in body of patient, statute of limitations, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-open-courts-provision.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">open courts argument</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">)<br />TANGIE WALTERS v. CLEVELAND REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, SHIRLEY KIEFER, AND KEITH SPOONER, M.D.; from Harris County; 1st district (01-06-01068-CV, 264 SW3d 154, 12-20-07)<br />The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.<br />Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court. [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/mar/080169.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;">pdf</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">]<br />View </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080169.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Electronic Briefs in 8-0169 WALTERS v. CLEVELAND REGIONAL MED. CENTER</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br /><br /></span><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Methodist-Healthcare-Systems-of-San-Antonio-Ltd-v-Rankin-by-Willett-HCLC-med-malpractices-claim-and-statute-of-repose.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">SUPREME ENDORSE ABSOLUTE PROTECTION: Tough luck, lady - The Legis wants you to lose<br /></span></a><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Methodist-Healthcare-Systems-of-San-Antonio-Ltd-v-Rankin-by-Willett-HCLC-med-malpractices-claim-and-statute-of-repose.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">STATUTE OF REPOSE USED TO DEFEAT OBVIOUS (RES IPSA LOQUITUR) MEDICAL MALPRACTICE</span></a><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Methodist-Healthcare-Systems-of-San-Antonio-Ltd-v-Rankin-by-Willett-HCLC-med-malpractices-claim-and-statute-of-repose.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;"> INVOLVING SURGICAL SPONGE LEFT IN WOMAN'S BODY AFTER HYSTERECTOMY:</span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Methodist-Healthcare-Systems-of-San-Antonio-Ltd-v-Rankin-by-Willett-HCLC-med-malpractices-claim-and-statute-of-repose.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br /></span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Methodist-Healthcare-Systems-of-San-Antonio-Ltd-v-Rankin-by-Willett-HCLC-med-malpractices-claim-and-statute-of-repose.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Methodist Healthcare Systems of San Antonio, Ltd. v. Rankin</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29298"><span style="line-height: 17px;">08-0316</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (Tex. Mar. 12, 2010)(Willett) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-statutes-of-repose.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">statute of repose</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-HCLC.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">health care liability claim</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-res-ipsa-loquitur-the-thing-speaks-for-itself.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">res ipsa loquitur</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">)<br />METHODIST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM OF SAN ANTONIO, LTD., L.L.P., W.C. SCHORLEMER, M.D., AND ROBERT SCHORLEMER, M.D. v. EMMALENE RANKIN; from Bexar County;<br />4th district (04-07-00305-CV, 261 SW3d 93, 03-05-08) 2 petitions<br />The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Willett-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Don-R-Willett.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Justice Willett</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> delivered the opinion of the Court. [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/mar/080316.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;">pdf</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">]<br />View </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080316.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Electronic Briefs 08-0316 METHODIST HEALTHCARE SY</span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080316.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;">S</span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080316.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;">TEM OF SAN ANTONIO, LTD., L.L.P. v. </span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080316.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;">RANKIN</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br /><br /></span><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-In-re-Columbia-Medical-Center-of-Las-Colinas-Inc-PC-exemplary-damages-reduced-by-mandamus-post-judgment.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">SUPREMES ADD YET ANOTHER FACET TO MANDAMUS JURISPRUDENCE</span></a><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-In-re-Columbia-Medical-Center-of-Las-Colinas-Inc-PC-exemplary-damages-reduced-by-mandamus-post-judgment.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">;</span></a><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-In-re-Columbia-Medical-Center-of-Las-Colinas-Inc-PC-exemplary-damages-reduced-by-mandamus-post-judgment.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;"> </span></a><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-In-re-Columbia-Medical-Center-of-Las-Colinas-Inc-PC-exemplary-damages-reduced-by-mandamus-post-judgment.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">GRANT </span></a><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-In-re-Columbia-Medical-Center-of-Las-Colinas-Inc-PC-exemplary-damages-reduced-by-mandamus-post-judgment.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">MANDAMUS AFTER SUPREME COURT APPEAL TO MAKE SURE EXEMPLARY DAMAGES IN RARE PLAINTIFF'S WIN GET REDUCED</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-In-re-Columbia-Medical-Center-of-Las-Colinas-Inc-PC-exemplary-damages-reduced-by-mandamus-post-judgment.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">In Re Columbia Med. Center of Las Colinas, Inc</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">., No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=30777"><span style="line-height: 17px;">09-0733</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (Tex. Mar. 12, 2010)(per curiam)<br />(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-exemplary-damages.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">exemplary damages</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> reduced by mandamus after post-appeal final judgment)<br />IN RE COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER OF LAS COLINAS, INC. D/B/A LAS COLINAS MEDICAL CENTER; from Dallas County<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants the writ of mandamus.<br />Per Curiam Opinion [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/mar/090733.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;">pdf</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">]<br />View </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20090733.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Electronic Briefs in 09-0733 IN RE COLUMBIA MED. CTR. OF LAS COLINAS, INC</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">.<br /><br /></span></span>WOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281586307952194922.post-39623485608513539962010-02-19T16:00:00.000-08:002010-02-19T17:00:50.611-08:00Another Class Action Dismantled by Texas Supreme Court<span class="text" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">CERTIFIED CLASS IN ACTION SEEKING REMEDY FOR OVERCHARGES FOR TELEPHONE SERVICE UNDONE<br /><br /></span></span><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-SWBT-Co-v-Marketing-on-Hold-Inc-Tex-2010-by-Wainwright-overcharge-claimants-class-action-decertified.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">SWBT Co. v. Marketing on Hold, Inc</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">,. No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=26457"><span style="line-height: 17px;">05-0748</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (Tex. Feb. 19, 2010)(Majority opinion by Wainwright) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-class-actions.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">class action</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, class decertified in </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-ILA.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">interlocutory appeal</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-standing-doctrine.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">standing</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">) </span></span><span class="text" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(102, 0, 204);">[B]ecause the putative class representative failed to establish that it adequately represents the class, </span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(102, 0, 204);">we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and decertify the class.</span></span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span class="text" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="line-height: 17px;">SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY v. MARKETING ON HOLD, INC. D/B/A SOUTHWEST TARIFF ANALYST; from Cameron County; 13th district (13-03-00287-CV, 170 SW3d 814, 08-04-05) emergency motion for expedited decision dismissed as moot<br />motion to dismiss denied<br />motion for damages and sanctions denied<br />The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.<br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Wainwright-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Dale-Wainwright.html">Justice Wainwright</a> delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-ONeill-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Harriet-O-Neill.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Justice Harriet O'Neill</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> delivered a </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-SWBT-v-Marketing-on-Hold-Inc-Tex-2010-Dissent-by-ONeill-disapproving-of-class-decertification-in-overcharge-action.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">dissenting opinion</span> in SW Bell Telephone Co. v. Marketing on Hold (Tex. 2010) </span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">in which Chief Justice Jefferson and Justice Medina joined.</span></span><span class="text" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Considering the absence of any realistic potential for conflict or antagonism between STA and the class, together with STA’s demonstrated superior expertise in the subject matter of the litigation, I would hold that STA has satisfied the adequacy requirement and affirm certification of the class. Because the Court concludes otherwise, I respectfully dissent.</span></span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span class="text" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" > (</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Guzman-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Eva-M-Guzman.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Justice Guzman not sitting</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(153, 0, 0);"> </span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">OTHER OPINIONS RELEASED TODAY: </span><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-City-of-Waco-v-Kelley-Tex-2010-by-Johnson-jurisdiction-of-hearing-examiner-police-disciplinary-process.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">City of Waco v. Kelley</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, No. </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=28398"><span style="line-height: 17px;">07-0485</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" > (Tex. Feb. 19, 2010)(Johnson)(municipal civil service disciplinary proceeding, judicial review of hearing examiner's decision, jurisdiction issue)<br />CITY OF WACO, TEXAS v. LARRY KELLEY; from McLennan County;<br />10th district (10-03-00214-CV, 226 SW3d 672, 05-02-07)<br />The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court<br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Johnson-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Phil-Johnson.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Justice Phil Johnson</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" > delivered the opinion of the Court.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-City-of-Dallas-v-Abbott-Attorney-General-Tex-2010-by-ONeill-Public-Information-Act-PIA-exception-from-disclosure.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">City of Dallas v. Abbott, AG</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, No. </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=28840"><span style="line-height: 17px;">07-0931</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" > (Tex. Feb. 19, 2010)(Majority opinion by O'Neill) (</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-PIA.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Public Information Act (PIA)</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >) (exceptions from mandatory disclosure)<br />CITY OF DALLAS v. GREG ABBOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS; from Travis County;<br />7th district (07-06-00161-CV, 279 SW3d 806, 08-13-07)<br />The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.<br />Justice O'Neill delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice Medina, Justice Green, and Justice Guzman joined.<br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Wainwright-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Dale-Wainwright.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Justice Dale Wainwright</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" > delivered a </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-City-of-Dallas-v-Abbott-Tex-2010-Dissent-by-Wainwright-PIA-exemptions-from-disclosure.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">dissenting opinion in City of Dallas v. Abbott</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >,<br />in which Justice Johnson joined.<br />(Justice Willett not sitting)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">SUPREMES TELL 8o-year OLD FRAIL LADY TO GO LITIGATE ELSEWHERE </span><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-In-re-ADM-Investor-Services-Inc-Tex-2010-by-Green-forum-selection-mandamus.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">In re ADM Investor Services, Inc.</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, No. </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29549"><span style="line-height: 17px;">08-0570</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" > (Tex. Feb. 19, 2010)(Opinion by Green) (</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-forum-selection.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">forum selection clause enforced by mandamus</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >) (poor health of elderly plaintiff rejected as reason for keeping case in Texas)<br />IN RE ADM INVESTOR SERVICES, INC.; from Rains County;<br />12th district (12-08-00125-CV, 257 SW3d 817, 06-30-08)<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.<br />Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court.<br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Willett-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Don-R-Willett.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Justice Don R. Willett</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" > delivered a </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-In-re-ADM-Investor-Services-Inc-Tex-2010-Concurrence-by-Willett-forum-selection-and-medical-health-reasons-to-avoid.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">concurring opinion in In re ADM Investor Services, Inc</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >.<br /></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" ><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/021210.asp"><b><span style="line-height: 22px;">Opinions Handed Down February 12, 2010</span></b></a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Galveston-ISD-v-Jaco-Tex-2010-whistleblower-case-remanded-in-light-of-Lueck-jurisdictionalizing-elements-of-claim.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Galveston I.S.D. vs. Jaco</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, No. </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=30244"><span style="line-height: 17px;">09-0195</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" > (</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20090343.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Tex. Feb. 12, 2010</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >)(per curiam)<br />(WBA case remanded to the court of appeals to determine whether plaintiff has alleged a violation under the </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-WBA.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Texas </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-WBA.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Whistleblower Act</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" > under the </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-State-of-Texas-and-TxDOT-v-Lueck-Tex-2009-by-Green-WBA-Whistblower-Act-Claim-dismissed.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">court's new holding in State v. Lueck, in which the Court elevated the </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-State-of-Texas-and-TxDOT-v-Lueck-Tex-2009-by-Green-WBA-Whistblower-Act-Claim-dismissed.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">sufficiency of the facts pleaded in support of each element of the claim to a jurisdictional matter</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >)<br />GALVESTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. BRENT JACO; from Galveston County;<br />14th district (14-08-00271-CV, 278 SW3d 477, 01-20-09)<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court. Per Curiam Opinion<br />(</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Guzman-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Eva-M-Guzman.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Justice Guzman not sitting</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >) [she wrote the opinion in the court of appeals below]<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-In-the-Matter-of-RD-Tex-2010-juvenile-delinquency-adjudication-error-preservation-through-new-trial.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">In the Matter of R.D.</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, No. </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=30391"><span style="line-height: 17px;">09-0343</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" > (Tex. Feb. 12, 2010)(per curiam)(</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-juveniles.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">juvenile delinquency proceedings</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-preservation-of-error-for-appeal.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">error preservation for appellate review by means of motion for new trial</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >)<br />The Texas Supreme Court concludes that [the juvenile's] general challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's delinquency finding met Rule 324's requirement for preserving his challenge to the jury's rejection of his affirmative defense.<br />IN THE MATTER OF R.D., A JUVENILE; from Bexar County; 8th district (08-07-00100-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 03-12-09)<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court. Per Curiam Opinion<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b><span style="line-height: 17px;">ORDERS ON PETITIONS FOR REVIEW: THE FOLLOWING PETITION FOR REVIEW IS ABATED:<br /></span></b><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Gallagher-Headquarters-Ranch-Dev-Ltd-v-City-of-SA-Tex-2010-PC-PFR-abated-pending-delivery-of-findings-by-trial-court.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Gallagher Headquarters Ranch Development, Ltd.</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, No. </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29738"><span style="line-height: 17px;">08-0773</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" > (Tex. Feb. 12, 2010)(per curiam)(</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-abatement-of-appeal.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">petition </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-abatement-of-appeal.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">abated</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-findings-of-fact-FOF.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">findings of fact requested from trial court</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-contract-construction.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">scope of release pursuant to settlement at issue</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >)<br />GALLAGHER HEADQUARTERS RANCH DEVELOPMENT, LTD., CHRIS HILL AND JULIE HOOPER v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AND CITY PUBLIC SERVICE; from Bexar County; 4th district (04-07-00325-CV, 269 SW3d 628, 07-23-08) </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-abatement-of-appeal.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">abatement order issued</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" ><br />The </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-abatement-of-appeal.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">petition is abated and remanded to the trial court</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"> for findings of fact. The trial court shall submit its findings to this Court no later than May 3, 2010. The parties may, within thirty days after the trial court's findings are submitted, provide a supplementary brief to this Court.<br />Per Curiam Opinion (Justice Hecht not sitting)<br /></span><br /></span><br /></span></span>WOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281586307952194922.post-47151831839351098032010-02-12T12:22:00.000-08:002010-02-12T15:01:51.543-08:00Texas Supreme Court Justices Snub Newest Member in Per Curiam Opinion<span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><br />Having jurisdictionalized the issue of pleading sufficiency with respect to facts supporting the elements of a Whistleblower claim in <a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-State-of-Texas-and-TxDOT-v-Lueck-Tex-2009-by-Green-WBA-Whistblower-Act-Claim-dismissed.html"><span style="font-style: italic;">State v. Lueck</span></a> last year -- thus allowing for dismissal by jurisdictional plea prior to discovery, summary judgment motions, not to mention trial on the merits -- the Supremes send back another whistleblower case to the lower court, so as to have their newly crafted precedent applied.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">Rookie <a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Guzman-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Eva-M-Guzman.html">Supreme Court Justice Eva Guzman</a> gets snubbed by her elder peers. She authored the opinion for the court below that Court reverses today. </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span class="text" style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/021210.asp"><b><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br /></span></b></a><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Galveston-ISD-v-Jaco-Tex-2010-whistleblower-case-remanded-in-light-of-Lueck-jurisdictionalizing-elements-of-claim.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Galveston ISD v. Jaco</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> (<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2010-Texas-Supreme-Court-Opinions.html">Tex. 2010</a>), </span><br />No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=30244"><span style="line-height: 17px;">09-0195</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20090343.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Tex. Feb. 12, 2010</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">)(per curiam) (whistle-blower case remanded to the court of appeals to determine whether plaintiff has alleged a violation under the </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-WBA.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Texas </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-WBA.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Whistleblower Act</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> under the </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-State-of-Texas-and-TxDOT-v-Lueck-Tex-2009-by-Green-WBA-Whistblower-Act-Claim-dismissed.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">court's holding in Lueck, which made sufficiency of the facts pleaded in support statutory cause of action a jurisdictional issue</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">)<br />GALVESTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. BRENT JACO; from Galveston County;<br />14th district (14-08-00271-CV, 278 SW3d 477, 01-20-09)<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.</span><span style="line-height: 17px;"> </span><span style="line-height: 17px;">Per Curiam Opinion<br />(Justice Eva M. Guzman not sitting)</span><span style="line-height: 17px;"> </span><span style="line-height: 17px;">(author of the opinion in the court below)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">PER CURIAM OPINION</span><br /></span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /> Justice Guzman did not participate in the decision.<br /><br />Brent Jaco sued the Galveston Independent School District under the Texas Whistleblower Act, alleging that he was demoted from his position as Director of Athletics and Extracurricular Activities for reporting a Ball High School football player’s violations of the University Interscholastic League’s eligibility rules to UIL officials. In a plea to the jurisdiction, the District asserted that Jaco’s claims were barred by governmental immunity and the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Jaco failed to make a good-faith report of a violation of law to an appropriate law-enforcement authority, as required by the Texas Whistleblower Act. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 554.002(a).<br /><br />The trial court denied the plea to the jurisdiction and the District appealed. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(8) (permitting appeal from an interlocutory order that denies a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental unit). The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the elements of section 554.002(a) of the Government Code are not jurisdictional. 278 S.W.3d 477, 482–83 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009).<br /><br />However, in State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876, 883 (Tex. 2009), we held that “the elements of section 554.002(a) can be considered to determine both jurisdiction and liability.” Accordingly, whether the reporting of a violation of UIL rules and regulations to the UIL is a good-faith report of a violation of law to an appropriate law-enforcement authority is a jurisdictional question.<br /><br />Therefore, without hearing oral argument, Tex. R. App. P. 59.1, and for the reasons explained in Lueck, we reverse and remand to the court of appeals to determine whether, under the analysis set forth in Lueck, Jaco has alleged a violation under the Whistleblower Act. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 554.002(a).<br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);font-size:100%;" >JUSTICE EVA HAD OPINED OTHERWISE:</span><span style="font-size:100%;"> "</span><span class="text" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 51);"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Because the District failed to present arguments that, if true, would deprive the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction, we affirm [ the trial court's denial of the school district's plea to the jurisdiction]</span></span></span><span style="font-size:100%;">;" </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);font-size:100%;" >but was not allowed to participate in supreme-level reconsideration of that holding.</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);font-size:100%;" >Nor was Guzman's court alone in declining to treat the elements as non-jurisdictional, as she explains in the opinion of the 14th court panel, which also included supreme court candidate Jeff Brown:</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span class="text" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 51);"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Although the Fourth,[5] Seventh,[6] and Tenth[7] Courts of Appeals have treated the elements of a whistleblower claim as jurisdictional,[8] these cases predate Park and were decided without discussion of whether the challenged elements concern jurisdiction or relate solely to liability. More recent opinions from the First,[9] Third,[10] Fifth,[11] and Thirteenth[12] Courts of Appeals suggest that the elements of a whistleblower cause of action are not jurisdictional. We agree with the latter opinions in concluding that, under the terms of the Act, waiver of immunity from suit is not dependent upon the merits of the claim. See Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. at Dallas v. Gentilello, 260 S.W.3d 221, 226 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, pet. filed); Tex. Bd. 483 of Pardons & Paroles v. Feinblatt, 82 S.W.3d 513, 520-21 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002, pet. denied) (good faith of report to appropriate agency affects the merits of the case but does not affect jurisdiction); see also Park, 246 S.W.3d at 613 n. 2 (holding that trial court had jurisdiction, although claim failed on the merits).<br /></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);font-size:100%;" >The Supremes put an end to that jurisprudential debate in 2009.<span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">RELATED CASE</span>:</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="text"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-UT-Southwestern-Medical-Center-at-Dallas-v-Gentillello-MD-Tex-2009-WBA-whistleblower-claim-Lueck-progeny.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">UT Southwestern Med. Ctr. at Dallas v. Gentillello</span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-UT-Southwestern-Medical-Center-at-Dallas-v-Gentillello-MD-Tex-2009-WBA-whistleblower-claim-Lueck-progeny.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">, M.D.</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29667"><span style="line-height: 17px;">08-0696</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (Tex. Dec. 18, 2009)(per curiam) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-WBA.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Whistleblower case</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> remanded in light of decision, holding in </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-State-of-Texas-and-TxDOT-v-Lueck-Tex-2009-by-Green-WBA-Whistblower-Act-Claim-dismissed.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">State vs. Lueck</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">)</span></span><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;">RELATED POST</span>: </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://texas-opinions.blogspot.com/2009/07/state-and-txdot-v-lueck-tex-2009.html">Whistleblowers Beware: State of Texas and TxDOT vs. Lueck (Tex 2009)</a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-size:85%;"><span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">TAGS:</span></span> public employment law, whistleblowing, sovereign immunity, statutory waiver of governmental immunity, Texas Whistleblower Act, plea to the jurisdiction, motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, pleading sufficiency, jurisdictional allegations<br /></span><br /></span>WOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281586307952194922.post-62283817954008086932010-02-12T11:47:00.000-08:002010-02-12T12:09:32.709-08:00Another Criminal Appeal in the Texas Supreme Court<span class="text" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;"><br />Well, not quite. Crimes by juveniles fall under the Family Code and are treated as civil, rather than criminal cases. Which is the reason appeals from delinquency cases occasionally end up before the Texas Supreme Court, rather than in the Court of Criminal Appeals. Application of the civil rules of procedure in juvenile delinquency cases can actually make a big difference, as illustrated by the case decided today, in which the sufficiency of error preservation by motion for new trial was the issue.</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-In-the-Matter-of-RD-Tex-2010-juvenile-delinquency-adjudication-error-preservation-through-new-trial.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">In the Matter of R.D.</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">, (</span><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2010-Texas-Supreme-Court-Opinions.html">Tex. 2010</a><span style="font-weight: bold;">) </span></span><br />No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=30391"><span style="line-height: 17px;">09-0343</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (<a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/021210.asp">Tex. Feb. 12, 2010</a>)(per curiam)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-juveniles.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">juvenile proceedings</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, civil rules applied to </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-motion-for-new-trial.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">motion for new trial</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-preservation-of-error-for-appeal.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">error preservation for appellate review</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">)<br />Texas Supreme Court concludes that [the juvenile's] general challenge to the sufficiency of the<br />evidence to support the jury's delinquency finding met Rule 324's requirement for preserving his<br />challenge to the jury's rejection of his affirmative defense.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">FROM THE UNSIGNED OPINION [one of three released February 12, 2010]: </span></span></span><span class="text" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br /><br />In this case a jury found that R.D., a juvenile, engaged in delinquent conduct of aggravated robbery. R.D. filed a motion for new trial generally challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict, and complaining specifically of the deadly-weapon finding supporting the “aggravated” status of the offense. R.D.’s motion did not specifically challenge the evidentiary basis for the jury’s rejection of his affirmative defense of duress, causing the court of appeals to conclude that the issue was waived on appeal. ___ S.W.3d ___, ___. Because the jury’s delinquency finding subsumed its rejection of R.D.’s affirmative defense, however, we hold that R.D.’s new trial motion was sufficient to preserve error. Accordingly, we grant the petition and, without hearing oral argument, remand the case to the court of appeals for further review.<br /><br />* * *<br /><br />In a civil case, in order to challenge on appeal the factual sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury finding, the point must be raised in a motion for new trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 324(b)(2). In In re M.R., 858 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Tex. 1993) (per curiam opinion denying application for writ of error), we stated that, unlike the rule in criminal cases, in juvenile proceedings a motion for new trial is necessary to preserve a factual sufficiency challenge.2 Unlike in In re M.R., however, R.D. did file a motion for new trial. The question is whether that motion was sufficient to encompass R.D.’s complaint on appeal that the jury’s rejection of his affirmative defense had no evidentiary support. We conclude that it was.<br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />IN THE MATTER OF R.D., A JUVENILE; from Bexar County; 8th district (<a href="http://www.8thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=69833">08-07-00100-CV</a>, ___ SW3d ___, 03-12-09) <br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that<br />court. Per Curiam Opinion </span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">TAGS: </span>preservation of error for appellate review, motion for new trial after jury trial, sufficiency point of error, juvenile cases, crimes by minors, delinquency adjudication </span>WOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281586307952194922.post-3977896919889393442010-01-31T11:06:00.000-08:002010-02-02T17:44:55.443-08:00January 2010 Texas Supreme Court Opinions<span class="text"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" ><br />Note: Fridays are opinion-release days at the Texas Supreme Court. Opinions were issued only on two Fridays in January 2010, however.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/011510.asp"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 22px"><strong>January </strong></span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/011510.asp"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 22px"><strong>15</strong></span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/011510.asp"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 22px"><strong>, 2010 Opinions of the Texas Supreme Court</strong></span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 22px"><strong><br /><br /><span style="color:#cc0000;">WHICH COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER TRUST-RELATED LITIGATION, REMOVAL OF TRUSTEE?</span><br /></strong></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Carroll-v-Carroll-Tex-2010-proceedings-concerning-trust-trustee-removal-which-court-has-jurisdiction.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"><strong>Carroll v. Carroll</strong></span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" ><strong>,</strong> No. </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29621"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">08-0644</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" > (</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/012210.asp"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Tex. Jan. 22, 2010</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >)(per curiam)(</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-trust.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">proceedings concerning trust</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-trustee-removal.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">trustee </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-trustee-removal.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">removal</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-trust.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">suit for accounting </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-trust.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">by trustee</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" > </span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" >belong in district court, not county court; absence of jurisdiction rendered judgment void)<br /></span></span><span class="text"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:14;" ><span style="font-size:85%;">In this case, Johnny and Letha sought removal of a trustee, an accounting by a trustee, and appointment of a successor trustee, together with money damages and attorney’s fees. Removal of a trustee, an accounting by a trustee, and appointment of a successor trustee are all “proceedings concerning a trust” expressly governed by the statute and fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the district court. Tex. Prop. Code § 115.001(a). As such, transfer to the Hill County Court at Law was improper because it was apparent from the pleadings that the county court lacked jurisdiction over the claims. Because the Hill County Court at Law had no jurisdiction over the claims, its judgment was void. See State ex rel. Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Tex. 1995). Because the county court’s judgment was void, we do not reach Johnny’s other arguments challenging the judgment.</span></span></span><span class="text"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />JOHNNY CARROLL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE JOHNNY CARROLL TRUST v. LETHA FRANCES CARROLL AND DONALD CARROLL; from Hill County;<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment, vacates the county court's judgment, and remands the case to the county court.<br />Per Curiam Opinion</span><br /><br /><span style="color:#990000;"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">SPECIAL APPEARANCE - NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN EXECUTIVES </span><br /></span>NEWLY-APPOINTED JUSTICE GUZMAN ISSUES FIRST OPINION IN CASE FROM COURT OF APPEALS OF WHICH SHE WAS UNTIL RECENTLY HERSELF A MEMBER<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-Kelly-v-General-Interior-Construction-Inc-Tex-2010-by-Guzman-special-appearance-foreign-corporate-officers-no-personal-jurisdiction.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"><strong>Kelly v. General Interior Construction, Inc.</strong></span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"><strong>,</strong> No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29643"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">08-0669</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> (Tex. Jan. 22, 2010)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Guzman-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Eva-M-Guzman.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Guzman</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-special-appearance.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">no personal jurisdiction</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-special-appearance.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">out-of-state officers of construction company should have been granted special appearance, no minimum contacts shown</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">)<br /></span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="text"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Because GIC’s pleadings lack Texas-specific allegations, the Officers negated all jurisdictional bases by proving that they do not live in Texas, and GIC has not presented any evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, we reverse in part the court of appeals and render judgment dismissing GIC’s claims against Kelly and Hofstatter for lack of personal jurisdiction.</span></span><br /></span><span class="text"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">DAN KELLY AND LAURA HOFSTATTER v. GENERAL INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION, INC.;<br />from Harris County; 14th district (14-07-00270-CV, 262 SW3d 79, 07-03-08)<br />The Court reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Guzman-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Eva-M-Guzman.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Justice </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Guzman-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Eva-M-Guzman.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Eva M. </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Guzman-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Eva-M-Guzman.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Guzman</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> delivered the opinion of the Court.<br /><br /><span style="color:#990000;"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">UNDER NEW PRECEDENT CREATED IN 2009, TRIAL COURTS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GRANT NEW TRIAL FOLLOWING JURY VERDICT MERELY "IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE" - ANOTHER JUDGE GETS MANDAMUSSED ACCORDINGLY</span><br /></span></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/10-In-Re-United-Scaffolding-Inc-Tex-2010-per-curiam-grant-of-new-trial-after-jury-verdict-requires-specific-explanation.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"><strong>In re United Scaffolding, Inc.</strong></span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"><strong>,</strong> No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=30450"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">09-0403</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> (Tex. Jan. 22, 2010)(per curiam)</span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-new-trial-after-jury-verdict-now-requires-specific-justification-by-the-judge.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">grant of new trial after jury verdict requires explanation pursuant to recently established new precedent</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">)</span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"><br />IN RE UNITED SCAFFOLDING, INC.; from Jefferson County; </span></span><br /><span class="text"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">9th district (09-09-00098-CV, 287 SW3d 274, 04-16-09)<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.<br />Per Curiam Opinion<br /></span></span><span class="text"><b><span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 26px"><br /></span></span></b><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/012210.asp"><b><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 22px">January 22, 2010: One Per Curiam Supreme Court of Texas Opinion </span></b></a><br /><br /><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 22px"><strong><span style="color:#990000;">SUPREMES ISSUE PER CURIAM IN ANOTHER APPEAL INVOLVING THE STATEMENT-OF-POINTS ERROR-PRESERVATION TRAP SET FOR PARENTS STRIPPED OF THEIR PARENTAL RIGHTS</span></strong></span></span><br /><span class="text"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/2010-In-re-JHG-per-curiam-termination-of-parental-rights-appeal-statement-of-points.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"><strong>In re JHG,</strong></span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=30576"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">09-0531</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2010-Texas-Supreme-Court-Opinions.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">Tex. Jan. 22, 2010</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">) </span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">(per curiam)<br /></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-termination-of-parental-rights.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">termination of parental rights appeal</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">, statement of points)</span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="text"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 19px;font-size:100%;" ><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Although the mother did not include the trial court’s failure to dismiss in her points for appeal, the court of appeals held that the issue was not waived because it bore on the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction. 290 S.W.3d at 403. This holding is directly contrary to our decision in In re Department of Family and Protective Services, in which we held that the section 263.401(a) dismissal date is procedural, not jurisdictional. 273 S.W.3d 637, 642 (Tex. 2009). As such, the mother’s failure to challenge the trial court’s extension of the statutory deadline in her statement of points waived the issue on appeal. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and remand the case to that court for consideration of the remaining issues.</span></span></span><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="text"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">IN RE J.H.G.; from Collin County; 5th district (05-08-00875-CV, 290 SW3d 400, 05-14-09)<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.<br />Per Curiam Opinion</span></span><br /></span><span class="text"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:14;" ><br /><br /></span></span><span class="text"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:14;" ></span></span>WOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281586307952194922.post-50753604909878688902009-12-31T21:51:00.001-08:002010-02-02T19:02:22.823-08:00Dec. 2009 End-of-Year Texas Supreme Court Decisions<span class="text"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2009-Jan-June-Supreme-Court-Decisions.html"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 102);"><span style="line-height: 22px;"><br /></span></span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/121809.asp"><b><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 204);"><span style="line-height: 22px;">DEC. 18, OPINIONS ISSUED BY THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT</span></span></b></a><b><span style="line-height: 22px;"><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">UNILATERAL CONTRACT CAN BECOME VALID AND ENFORCEABLE: ACCEPTANCE BY PERFORMANCE </span><br /></span></b><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Vanegas-v-American-Energy-Services-Tex-2009-by-Green-unilateral-contract-illusory-promise-enforceable-after-performance.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Vanegas v. American Energy Servcies</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">,</span> No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=28433"><span style="line-height: 17px;">07-0520</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/121809.asp"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Tex. Dec. 18, 2009</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Green-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Paul-Green.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Green</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">)<br />(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-contract-formation.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">contract formation and validity, enforceability</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">)</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-contract-formation.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">(illusory promise at the time it was made, promise became enforceable upon performance</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">)<span style="font-size:85%;"><br />ED VANEGAS, JIMMY D. HALMAN, SAM ARMSTRONG, ALEX CARBAJAL, ROGER FARRINGTON, CURTIS HUFF, AND TITO BETANCUR v. AMERICAN ENERGY SERVICES, NIEWOEHNER PARTNERSHIP, L.P., RCH/HSJ/CCM/MCPI, L.P., AUTRY STEPHENS, JOHN CARNETT, BRACK BLACKWOOD, AND DENNIE MARTIN; from Midland County; 11th district (11-06-00118-CV, 224 SW3d 544, 05-10-07)<br />The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.<br />Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court. [</span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/dec/070520.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;">pdf</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >]</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20070520.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span></span></a><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">CORRECTION DEED COULD NOT BE USED TO ADD PROPERTY OMITTED FROM ORIGINAL CONVEYANCE, BUT RESCISSION REMEDY GRANTED IN LIGHT OF ERROR </span><br /><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Myrad-Properties-Inc-v-Lasalle-Bank-Tex-2009-correction-deed-void-but-rescission-granted.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Myrad Properties, Inc. v. Lasalle Bank NA</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29425"><span style="line-height: 17px;">08-0444</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (Tex. Dec. 18, 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Green-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Paul-Green.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Green</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">)<br />(whether a correction </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-deed.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">deed</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> may convey two properties when an unambiguous deed mistakenly conveyed only one, correction deed found </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-void.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">void</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, court renders judgment and orders </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-rescission.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">rescission</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> of the mistaken deed)<span style="font-size:85%;"><br />MYRAD PROPERTIES, INC. v. LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF GMAC COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITES, INC., COMMERICIAL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 1997-C1, ROBIN GREEN, AND MELISSA COBB;<br />from Bell County; 3rd district (03-07-00240-CV, 252 SW3d 605, 03-28-08)<br />The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.<br />Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court. [</span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/dec/080444.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;">pdf</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >]</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">WHISTLEBLOWER CASE REMANDED UNDER NEW PRECEDENT WHICH MAKES PLEADING SUFFICIENCY A JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE </span><br /><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-UT-Southwestern-Medical-Center-at-Dallas-v-Gentillello-MD-Tex-2009-WBA-whistleblower-claim-Lueck-progeny.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">UT Southwestern Med. Ctr. at Dallas v. Gentillell</span></a><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-UT-Southwestern-Medical-Center-at-Dallas-v-Gentillello-MD-Tex-2009-WBA-whistleblower-claim-Lueck-progeny.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">o, M.D.</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29667"><span style="line-height: 17px;">08-0696</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (Tex. Dec. 18, 2009)(per curiam) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-WBA.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Whistleblower case</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> remanded in light of decision, holding in </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-State-of-Texas-and-TxDOT-v-Lueck-Tex-2009-by-Green-WBA-Whistblower-Act-Claim-dismissed.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">State v. Lueck</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">)<br />THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER AT DALLAS v. LARRY M. GENTILELLO, M.D.; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-07-00845-CV, 260 SW3d 221, 07-18-08) motion to dismiss dismissed as moot stay order issued October 2, 2008, lifted<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals’ judgment and remands the case to that court.<br />Per Curiam Opinion [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/dec/080696.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;">pdf</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">]</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080696.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br /></span></a><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">TRIAL COURT ALLOWED TOO MUCH DISCOVERY: SUPREME COURT AGAIN STEPS IN AND WIELDS MANDAMUS POWERS TO PROTECT CORPORATE DEFENDANT; LIMITS MANUFACTURER'S DUTY TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS IN PRODUCT LIABILITY SUIT </span><br /><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-In-Re-Deere-and-Co-John-Deere-Tex-2009-PC-discovery-order-too-broad-mandamus-granted.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">In Re Deere & Co</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">., No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=30039"><span style="line-height: 17px;">08-1076</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (Tex. Dec. 18, 2009)(per curiam)(orig. proceeding) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2009-Mandamus-Decisions-with-Opinions.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">discovery mandamus granted</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-discovery-mandamus.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">trial court’s order compelling production of documents found overly broad</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> in temporal scope)<br />IN RE DEERE & COMPANY D/B/A JOHN DEERE COMPANY AND JOHN DEERE CONSTRUCTION & FORESTRY COMPANY; from Johnson County; 10th district (10-08-00436-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 12-22-08) stay order issued January 14, 2009, lifted<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.<br />Per Curiam Opinion [</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/dec/081076.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;">pdf</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">]</span><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br /><br /></span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/121109.asp"><b><span style="line-height: 24px;">Dec. 11, 2009 Texas Supreme Court Opinions </span></b></a><br /></span><span class="text"><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">DUTY TO DEFEND AND DUTY TO INDEMNIFY DISTINGUISHED IN BUILDER VS. INSURER COVERAGE DISPUTE </span><br /><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-D-R-Horton-Texas-Ltd-v-Markel-Int-Ins-Co-Tex-2009-duty-to-defend-defense-costs-indemnification.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">D.R. Horton-Texas, Ltd. v. Markel International Ins. Co</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">. No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=27813"><span style="line-height: 17px;">06-1018</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/121109.asp"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Tex. Dec. 11, 2009</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">)(Wainwright) (CGL </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-insurance-coverage-disputes.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">insurance coverage</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-duty-to-defend.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">duty to defend</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-indemnity-indemnify-indemnification.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">duty to indemnify</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">)<br />D.R. HORTON-TEXAS, LTD. v. MARKEL INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.; from Harris County; 14th district (14-05-00486-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 10-26-06)<br />The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Wainwright-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Dale-Wainwright.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Justice Dale Wainwright</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> delivered the </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/dec/061018.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;">opinion of the Court [in pdf]<br /></span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">(Justice Guzman not sitting)<br /><br /></span></span><span class="text"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">IT MUST BE THE PLAINTIFF'S FAULT: SUPREMES SEE TO IT THAT DTPA PLAINTIFF LOSES; MAKE UP NEW RULE, APPLY IT RETROACTIVELY AND RULE AGAINST PLAINTIFF BECAUSE HE FAILED TO ESTABLISH EVIDENCE TO SATISFY THE NEW RULE HE DID NOT ANTICIPATE.</span></span><br /><span class="text"><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Metro-Allied-Insurance-Agency-v-Lin-Tex-2009-DTPA-negligence-failure-to-procure-insurance-claim-take-nothing-JNOV-against-plaintiff-reinstated.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Metro Allied Ins. Agency</span></a><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Metro-Allied-Insurance-Agency-v-Lin-Tex-2009-DTPA-negligence-failure-to-procure-insurance-claim-take-nothing-JNOV-against-plaintiff-reinstated.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;"> v. Lin</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=28940"><span style="line-height: 17px;">07-1032</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/121109.asp"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Tex. Dec, 11, 2009</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">)(per curiam)<br />(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-DTPA.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">DTPA</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, negligence claim predicated on failure to procure insurance coverage, causation standard)(take-nothing </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-JNOV.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">JNOV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> against plaintiff reinstated)<br />METRO ALLIED INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. AND C. MICHAEL MCGLOTHLIN v. SHIHCHE E. LIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A APTUS COMPANY, AND SUNG-PING H. LIN; from Harris County; 1st district (01-05-00196-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 08-31-07)<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.<br /></span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/dec/071032.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Per Curiam Opinion [in pdf]</span></a><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><br /><br /></span><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">ASSAULT ON JURY VERDICTS CONTINUES: SUPREME COURT FINDS FAULT WITH EXPERT TESTIMONY ON DEFECTIVE CLOTHES DRYER IN PRODUCT-LIABILITY SUIT BROUGHT BY PARENTS OF TEEN WHO PERISHED IN FIRE. JURY HAD FOUND THAT A DESIGN DEFECT IN WHIRLPOOL DRYER CAUSED THE FATAL FIRE. SUPREME COURT DISAGREES, REVERSES, AND RENDERS JUDGMENT FOR THE MANUFACTURER.</span><br /></span><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Whirlpool-Corp-v-Camacho-Tex-2009-by-Johnson-product-liability-laundry-dryer-fire-jury-verdict-reversed.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Whirlpool Corp. v. Camacho</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29158"><span style="line-height: 17px;">08-0175</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (</span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/121109.asp"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Tex. Dec. 11, 2009</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">)(Johnson)<br />(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-product-liability.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">product liability suit</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, design defect, laundry dryer fire, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-expert-opinions-testimony.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">expert testimony</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">)(multi-million judgment on jury verdict reversed)<br />WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION v. MARGARITA CAMACHO, ET AL.; from Hidalgo County;<br />13th district (13-05-00361-CV, 251 SW3d 88, 01-17-08)<br />The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Johnson-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Phil-Johnson.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Justice Phil Johnson</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> delivered the </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/dec/080175.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;">opinion of the Court [in pdf]<br /></span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">(Justice Guzman not sitting)<br /><br /></span></span>WOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281586307952194922.post-86730845540462373672009-11-20T16:09:00.000-08:002009-11-20T16:20:49.967-08:002009-11-20 Texas Supreme Court Nixes Gas Station Owners' Class Action Against Exxon<span class="text"><span style="font-size:100%;"><b><span style="line-height: 26px;"><br /></span></b><a style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Exxon-Mobil-Corp-v-Gill-Tex-2009-per-curiam-class-action-certification-undone-vacated.html"><b><span style="line-height: 17px;">ANOTHER CLASS-ACTION UNDONE BY THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT</span></b></a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Exxon-Mobil-Corp-v-Gill-Tex-2009-per-curiam-class-action-certification-undone-vacated.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Gill</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, No. 07-0404 (<a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/112009.asp">Tex. Nov. 20, 2009</a>)(per curiam)(</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-class-actions.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">class action suits</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >)</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Exxon-Mobil-Corp-v-Gill-Tex-2009-per-curiam-class-action-certification-undone-vacated.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">(</span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Exxon-Mobil-Corp-v-Gill-Tex-2009-per-curiam-class-action-certification-undone-vacated.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">trial court’s class certification order </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Exxon-Mobil-Corp-v-Gill-Tex-2009-per-curiam-class-action-certification-undone-vacated.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">in suit brought by gas station dealers over pricing and rebates </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Exxon-Mobil-Corp-v-Gill-Tex-2009-per-curiam-class-action-certification-undone-vacated.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >)<br />EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION v. DAN GILL, ET AL.; from Nueces County;<br />13th district (13 06 00048 CV, ___ SW3d ___, 04 12 07) Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.</span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" > </span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >(Justice O'Neill and Justice Guzman not sitting)<br /></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" ><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="line-height: 17px;">APPEAL OVER THIRD-PARTY LIABILITY IN TEXAS A&M BONFIRE COLLAPSE ENDS AS TEXAS SUPREME COURT UN-GRANTS PETITION FOR REVIEW AS MOOT AFTER SETTLEMENT<br /><br /></span></b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Zachry-Construction-Corp-v-Texas-AandM-University-Tex-2009-by-ONeill-bonfire-liability-responsible-third-party-status-changed-to-settling-person-petition-ungranted.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Zachry Construction Corp v. Texas A&M University</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, No. 07-1050 (Tex. Nov. 20, 2009) (O'Neill)</span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >(A&M bonfire litigation aftermath, proportionate responsibility, responsible third party) (petition for review </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-mootness-doctrine.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">mooted</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" > by settlement and status change to "settling person") </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br />ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, ET AL. v. TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY; from Brazos County; 10th district (10 05 00139 CV, 236 SW3d 801, 11 14 07) 2 petitions, motion to dismiss denied The Court withdraws its order of May 15, 2009, granting the petitions for review, as the petitions were improvidently granted. The petitions for review are denied.<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-ONeill-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Harriet-O-Neill.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Justice </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-ONeill-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Harriet-O-Neill.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Harriet </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-ONeill-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Harriet-O-Neill.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">O'Neill</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" > delivered the opinion of the Court. (Justice Willett not sitting)<br /></span><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);font-size:100%;" ><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="line-height: 17px;">SUBSTITUTED OPINION ISSUED IN BILLBOARD CONDEMNATION APPEAL<br /><br /></span></b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-State-of-Texas-v-Central-Expressway-Sign-Associates-Tex-2009-Substituted-Opinion-by-ONeill-billboard-condemnation-determniation-of-market-value.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">State of Texas v. Central Expressway Sign Associates</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, No. 08-0061 (Tex. Nov. 20, 2009)(</span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >Subst. Op. by </span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >O'Neill)</span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" > (</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-condemnation.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">condemnation</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-appraisal-of-market-value-real-property.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">proper method for determining market value</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-expert-witness-testimony.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">admissibility of expert testimony</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-appraisal-of-market-value-real-property.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">methods to appraise market value of condemned property</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >)(</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-harmful-error-analysis-of-evidentiary-rulings.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">harmful error analysis of complaints about admission or exclusion of evidence on appeal</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >)</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br />THE STATE OF TEXAS v. CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY SIGN ASSOCIATES, ET AL.; from Dallas County;5th district (05 06 00003 CV, 238 SW3d 800, 08 31 07)<br />motion for rehearing denied <br />The Court's opinion of June 26, 2009 is withdrawn and the opinion of this date is issued.<br />The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-ONeill-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Harriet-O-Neill.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Justice O'Neill</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> delivered the opinion of the Court.</span><span style="line-height: 17px;"> </span></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" ><br />(Justice Guzman not sitting)<br /></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" ><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="line-height: 17px;">ANOTHER TORT SUIT AGAINST A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY BITES THE DUST IN THE HIGH COURT<br /><br /></span></b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-City-of-Waco-v-Kirwan-Tex-2009-by-Green-TTCA-no-liability-for-fatal-fall-from-cliff.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">City of Waco v. Kirwan</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, No. 08-0121 (Tex. Nov. 20, 2009)(Green)(</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-premises-liability.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">premises liability</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, fatal fall from cliff, recreational use statute</span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >)<br />CITY OF WACO v. DEBRA KIRWAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF BRAD MCGEHEE, DECEASED; from McLennan County;<br />10th district (10 07 00123 CV, 249 SW3d 544, 01 09 08) <br />The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and dismisses the case.<br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Green-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Paul-Green.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Justice Green</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" > delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice O'Neill, Justice<br />Wainwright, Justice Medina, Justice Johnson, Justice Willett, and Justice Guzman joined as to Parts I–V, and in which Chief Justice Jefferson joined as to Part IV.<br /></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" ><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="line-height: 17px;">JURY'S DENIAL OF ALL ATTORNEY'S FEES REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL ON FEES<br /><br /></span></b></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Midland-Western-Building-LLC-v-First-Service-Air-Conditioning-Contractors-Inc-PC-new-trial-on-attorneys-fees-ordered.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Midland Western Building LLC v. First Service Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc.</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, No. 08-0504 (Tex. Nov. 20, 2009)(per curiam) </span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >(</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Midland-Western-Building-LLC-v-First-Service-Air-Conditioning-Contractors-Inc-PC-new-trial-on-attorneys-fees-ordered.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">zero attorney's fees awarded by jury not supported by the evidence</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-attorneys-fees.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">attorney fee testimony</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/law-attorneys-fees-segregation.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">segregation of fees incurred against different parties</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >)(new trial on attorney's fees ordered) </span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" > <br />MIDLAND WESTERN BUILDING L.L.C. v. FIRST SERVICE AIR CONDITIONING CONTRACTORS, INC.; from Midland County; 11th district (11 06 00222 CV, ___ SW3d ___, 03 13 08)<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.<br /></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" ><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="line-height: 17px;">NON-SIGNATORIES COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIMS BASED ON BENEFICIARY STATUS<br /></span></b></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" > </span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" ><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-In-Re-Golden-Peanut-Co-LLC-Tex-2009-per-curiam-nonsignatories-wrongful-death-plaintiffs-compelled-to-arbitrate-as-derivative-claimants.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">In Re Golden Peanut Co.,LLC</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, No. 09-0122 (Tex. Nov. 20, 2009)(per curiam)(</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-arbitration-mandamus.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">mandamus compelling </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-arbitration-mandamus.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">arbitration</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" > granted) (</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-arbitration-non-signatories.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">arbitration and nonsignatories</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-Wrongful-Death-Act.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">wrongful death plaintiffs</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" > bound by arbitration agreement consented to by </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-arbitration-workplace-injury-claims.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">worker prior to being killed on the job</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" > as derivative claimants and must arbitrate claim against employer, </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-arbitration-workplace-injury-claims.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">pre-injury waivers</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-forum-selection.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">forum selection</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" > vs. </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-waiver.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">waiver of substantive rights</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >)<br />IN RE GOLDEN PEANUT COMPANY, LLC; from Gaines County;<br />11th district (</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.11thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=8489"><span style="line-height: 17px;">11 08 00215 CV</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/11-08-00215-CV-arbitration-mandamus-denied-by-COA-but-later-granted-by-Tex-wrongful-death-beneficiaries-nonsignatories.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">269 SW3d 302</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, 11 13 08)<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.<br /><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><b style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="line-height: 17px;">ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING </span></b><b><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br /><br /><br /></span></b><b><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">WILLETT DISSENT FROM DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REVIEW IN CASE RAISING OFFICIAL IMMUNITY ISSUE</span><br /></span></b><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Watson-v-Watkins-Tex-2009-Willet-Dissent-for-denial-of-review-off-duty-moonlighting-peace-officers-and-official-immunity.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Watson v. Watkins</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >, No. 09-0166 (Tex. Nov. 20, 2009)(Willett)</span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >(opinion dissenting from denial of review) </span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" >(would accept case presenting question whether peace officers are entitled to </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-official-immunity-defense.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">official immunity</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:100%;" > for acts performed while serving as private security guards will off-duty). </span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14;" ><span style="font-size:100%;"><br />SHANE WATSON v. SHIRLEY NEWMAN AND JILL WATKINS; from Potter County;<br />7th district (07 08 00203 CV, ___ SW3d ___, 11 21 08) <br />Justice Willett, joined by Justice Hecht, delivered an opinion dissenting from the denial.<br /><br /><br /></span><br /></span></span>WOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281586307952194922.post-70670216545011187022009-11-01T21:02:00.000-08:002009-11-01T21:53:54.701-08:002009-10-30 Tex. Sup. Ct. Opinions<span class="text" style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2009-Jan-June-Supreme-Court-Decisions.html"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 102);"><span style="line-height: 22px;"><br /></span></span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/103009.asp"><b><span style="line-height: 22px;">Texas Supreme Court Opinions Issued October 30, 2009<br /></span></b></a><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">ATTORNEY'S FEES OCCASIONED BY PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE OF ATTORNEY(S) RECOVERABLE BY CLIENT AS DAMAGES IN SUBSEQUENT LEGAL MALPRACTICE SUIT - "AMERICAN RULE" NOTWITHSTANDING</span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Akin-Gump-Strauss-Hauer-and-Feld-LLP-v-National-development-and-Research-Corp-by-Johnson-attorneys-fees-caused-by-attorney-negligence-as-damages-in-malpractice-suit.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP v. National Development and Research Corp</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">. No. 07-0818 (Tex. Oct. 30, 2009)(Johnson)</span><span style="line-height: 17px;">(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-malpractice-legal.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">legal malpractice</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, damages dependent on collectibility or would-be judgment, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-attorneys-fees.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">attorney's fees caused by malpractice as recoverable damages, the American Rule</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">)(fee forfeiture remedy for breach of fiduciary duty to client distinguished) (proper amount of attorney's fees damages to be determined upon remand)</span><span style="line-height: 17px;"> </span><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br />AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, L.L.P. v. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH CORPORATION; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-06-01024-CV, 232 SW3d 883, 08-29-07) 2 petitions<br />The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment, renders judgment in part, and remands the case in part to the court of appeals.<br />Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court.<br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Related Tex Parte post: </span></span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://texaslawyer.typepad.com/texas_lawyer_blog/2009/10/texas-supreme-court-legal-malpractice-client-can-recover-fees-it-paid.html">Texas Supreme Court: Legal malpractice client can recover fees it paid</a></span><span class="text" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span><br /><br />CORRECT AMOUNT OF FRAUD DAMAGES TO BE FIGURED ON REMAND, VIA REMITTITURE OR NEW TRIAL</span><br /><br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Aquaplex-Inc-v-Rancho-Law-Valencia-Inc-Tex-2009-per-curiam-fraud-damages-amount.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Aquaplex, Inc v. Rancho La Valencia, Inc.</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, No. 08-0280 (Tex. Oct 30, 2009)(per curiam) </span><span style="line-height: 17px;">(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-fraud.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">fraud damages</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, proving </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-damages-proof.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">amount of damages</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, remittiture by court of appeals or new trial) </span><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br />AQUAPLEX, INC. AND JAMES EDWARD JONES, JR. v. RANCHO LA VALENCIA, INC. AND CHARLES R. "RANDY" TURNER; from Travis County; 7th district (07-06-00157-CV, 253 SW3d 728, 11-02-07)<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.</span><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD NOT HAVE RENDERED JUDGMENT IN INVERSE CONDEMNATION APPEAL; CASE TO GO BACK TO TRIAL COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS</span><br /></span><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-City-of-Houston-v-Trail-Enterprises-Inc-Tex-2009-per-curiam-ripeness-doctrine-inverse-condemnation-remand-to-trial-court.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">City of Houston v. Trail Enterprises, Inc.</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> No. 08-0413 (Tex. Oct. 30, 2009)(per curiam) </span>(<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-ripeness-doctrine.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">ripeness doctrine</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-inverse-condemnation-claim.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">inverse condemnation ripe</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-zoning-disputes-land-use-regulation.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">regulatory takings claim, zoning</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">)(remanded to trial court) </span><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br />CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS v. TRAIL ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A WILSON OIL COMPANY, ET AL.; from Harris County; 10th district (10-05-00382-CV, 255 SW3d 105, 04-09-08)<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals’ judgment and remands the case to the trial court.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">VICE-PRINCIPALS WHO DEFAMED EMPLOYEE WITH KNOWLEDGE OF FALSITY TRIGGERED KNOWING-FALSEHOOD EXCLUSION OF COMMERCIAL INSURANCE POLICY'S PI/LIBEL/SLANDER COVERAGE. INSURER EXCUSED FROM PAYING. </span><br /><br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Chrysler-Insurance-Co-v-Greenspoint-Dodge-of-Houston-Inc-Tex-2009-per-curiam-insurance-coverage-dispute-re-liability-for-defamation-knowing-falsity-exclusion.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Chrysler Ins. Co.,</span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Chrysler-Insurance-Co-v-Greenspoint-Dodge-of-Houston-Inc-Tex-2009-per-curiam-insurance-coverage-dispute-re-liability-for-defamation-knowing-falsity-exclusion.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;"> v. Greenspoint Dodge of Houston, Inc.</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">,</span><span style="line-height: 17px;"> No. 08-0780 (Tex. Oct. 30, 2009)(per curiam) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2009-Insurance-Law-Decisions-Texas-Supreme-Court-Appeals.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">insurance coverage dispute</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, knowledge of falsity exclusion to </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-defamation-libel-slander.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">defamation</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> liability coverage based on knowledge of vice-principals; knowledge imputed on insured, thus exclusion applies</span><span style="line-height: 17px;">, warranting take-nothing judgment</span><span style="line-height: 17px;">)<br />CHRYSLER INSURANCE COMPANY, FORMERLY KNOWN AS DAIMLERCHRYSLER INSURANCE COMPANY v. GREENSPOINT DODGE OF HOUSTON, INC.; from Harris County;<br />1st district (01-05-01115-CV, 265 SW3d 52, 04-10-08) 2 petitions<br />motion to dismiss the cross-petition on behalf of Jack Apple, Jr. granted<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.</span><span style="line-height: 17px;"> </span><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br />(Justice Guzman not sitting)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">DEFAULT JUDGMENT REVERSED ON HYPER-TECHNICALITY IN FORM. - SERVICE OF CITATION WAS BY CERTIFIED MAIL, BUT SUPREMES FIND FAULT WITH ABSENCE OF A NOTATION AS TO THE HOUR ON THE RETURN (as if it could ever make any difference). -- Even the slightest irregularity will do to throw out a [default] judgment for a Plaintiff.</span><br /><br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Insurance-Company-of-the-State-Pennsylvania-v-Lejeune-Tex-2009-restricted-appeal-default-judgment-error-on-return-of-process.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. Lejeune</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, No. 08-0829 (Tex. Oct. 30, 2009) (per curiam) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-restricted-appeal.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">restricted appeal</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> of </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-default-judgment.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">default judgment</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-error-on-the-face-of-the-record.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">error on the face of the record</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, time of service not noted on return of citation)<br />INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA v. EDWARD LEJEUNE; from Red River County; 6th district (06-07-00142-CV, 261 SW3d 852, 08-20-08)<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.<br /><br /></span></span>WOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281586307952194922.post-15356862385973842752009-10-23T16:53:00.000-07:002009-10-25T13:22:57.452-07:00Texas Supreme Court's First Set of Opinions in New FY Does Not Suggest Any Impending Shift<span style="COLOR: rgb(153,0,0)"><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153); FONT-WEIGHT: bold"></span></span><br /><span style="COLOR: rgb(153,0,0)"><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153); FONT-WEIGHT: bold">MISSION STATEMENT: THE BUSINESS OF AN ALL-REPUBLICAN TEXAS SUPREME COURT IS TO REVERSE JURY VERDICTS IN TORT CASES AGAINST CORPORATE DEFENDANTS.<br /><br />A VARIETY OF LEGAL THEORIES WILL DO, INCLUDING FEDERAL PREEMPTION<br /></span></span><br /><a style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold" href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/102309.asp">October 23, 2009 Opinions</a><br /><span style="COLOR: rgb(153,0,0)"><br /><span style="COLOR: rgb(153,0,0); FONT-WEIGHT: bold">AS LONG AS THE NUMBER OF FOOTNOTES EXCEEDS 50, IT MUST BE THE CORRECT DECISION (AFTER ALL, WHO HAS THE TIME TO ACTUALLY READ HECHT'S OPINIONS AND UNDERSTAND THAT FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT WAS MEANT TO PROMOTE SAFETY AND PREVENT TRAGEDIES SUCH AS THIS ONE, RATHER THAN PROVIDE AN EXCUSE TO THROW OUT A JURY AWARD IN A WRONGFUL DEATH CASE IN THE NAME OF FEDERAL PREEMPTION?)</span></span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Missouri-Pacific-Railroad-RR-Co-v-Limmer-Tex-2009-by-Hecht-wrongful-death-train-truck-collision-federal-preemption.html">Missouri Pacific RR Co. v. Limmer</a>, No. <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=26830">06-0023</a> (<a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/102309.asp">Tex. Oct. 23, 2009</a>)(<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Hecht-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Nathan-Hecht.html">Hecht</a>) (<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Missouri-Pacific-Railroad-RR-Co-v-Limmer-Tex-2009-by-Hecht-wrongful-death-train-truck-collision-federal-preemption.html">j</a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Missouri-Pacific-Railroad-RR-Co-v-Limmer-Tex-2009-by-Hecht-wrongful-death-train-truck-collision-federal-preemption.html">udgment on j</a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Missouri-Pacific-Railroad-RR-Co-v-Limmer-Tex-2009-by-Hecht-wrongful-death-train-truck-collision-federal-preemption.html">ury verdict</a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Missouri-Pacific-Railroad-RR-Co-v-Limmer-Tex-2009-by-Hecht-wrongful-death-train-truck-collision-federal-preemption.html"> </a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Missouri-Pacific-Railroad-RR-Co-v-Limmer-Tex-2009-by-Hecht-wrongful-death-train-truck-collision-federal-preemption.html">in wrongful </a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Missouri-Pacific-Railroad-RR-Co-v-Limmer-Tex-2009-by-Hecht-wrongful-death-train-truck-collision-federal-preemption.html">dea</a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Missouri-Pacific-Railroad-RR-Co-v-Limmer-Tex-2009-by-Hecht-wrongful-death-train-truck-collision-federal-preemption.html">th case arising from train-truck collision reversed based on federal preemption</a>) MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY D/B/A UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. PATRICIA LIMMER, BILLYE JOYCE SMITH, AND BOBBY JEAN NOTHNAGEL; from Harris County;14th district (14-02-00688-CV, 180 SW3d 803, 11-29-05) 2 petitions The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Wainwright, Justice Medina, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.(Justice O'Neill and Justice Guzman not sitting)(Newly appointed <a href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/Justice-Guzman.html">Justice Eva Guzman</a> is the author of the opinion in the court of appeals)(reversal and remand not sufficient, new colleagues hold, take-nothing judgment must be entered)<br /><br /><span style="COLOR: rgb(153,51,0); FONT-WEIGHT: bold">WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A JUDGMENT IS REVERSED THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID TO AVOID CONTINUING ACCRUAL OF INTEREST? CAN THE SUCCESSFUL APPELLANT GET THE MONEY BACK?</span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/oct/070123.pdf">Miga v. Jensen</a>, No. 07-0123 (<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2009-Supreme-Court-Decisions.html">Tex. 2009</a>)(<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Jefferson-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Chief-Justice-Wallace-Jefferson.html">Jefferson</a>) (<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Miga-v-Jensen-Tex-2009-by-Jefferson-collection-of-paid-judgment-after-reversal-on-appeal.html">recovery of money paid on judgment upon reversal on appeal</a>, restitution, <a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-unjust-enrichment.html">unjust enrichment</a>) (voluntary payment rule inapplicable) DENNIS L. MIGA v. RONALD L. JENSEN; from Tarrant County;2nd district (02-05-00277-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 11-30-06). The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment. Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court.<br /><br /><span style="COLOR: rgb(153,0,0); FONT-WEIGHT: bold">FEE RECOVERY LIMITED </span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Smith-v-Patrick-W-Y-Tam-Trust-by-Jefferson-reasonableness-of-attorneys-fees-less-than-full-recovery-of-damages-sought.html">Smith v. Patrick W. Y. Tam Trust</a>, No. 07-0970 (Tex. Oct. 23, 2009)(Jefferson) (<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-attorneys-fees-reasonable-amount.html">reasonableness of attorneys fees</a> when recovery of damages is less than what was sought) LAURI SMITH AND HOWARD SMITH v. PATRICK W.Y. TAM TRUST; from Collin County;5th district (05-06-00356-CV, 235 SW3d 819, 07-31-07). The Court reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court. <a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Jefferson-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Chief-Justice-Wallace-Jefferson.html">Chief Justice Jefferson</a> delivered the opinion of the Court.<br /><br /><span style="COLOR: rgb(153,0,0); FONT-WEIGHT: bold">DEBT COLLECTORS / THIRD-PARTY DEBT BUYERS CAN'T DO NO WRONG - SUPREME COURT BLESSES ATTEMPTS TO USE (AND BURDEN) STATE COURT SYSTEM TO COLLECT CREDIT CARD DEBT ALREADY DISCHARGED IN BANKRUPTCY</span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Unifund-CCR-Partners-v-Villa-Tex-2009-sanctions-for-suing-on-debt-discharged-in-bankruptcy-reversed.html">Unifund CCR Partners v. Villa</a>, No. 08-1026 (Tex. Oct. 23, 2009)(per curiam) (<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-sanctions.html">sanctions</a> for filing suit to collect debt discharged in bankruptcy reversed) <a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/4thCoA-2008-Unifund-CCR-Parnters-v-Villa-Tex-App-San-Antonio-sanctions-for-debt-collection-suit-after-bankruptcy-bad-faith-conduct.html">UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS v. JAVIER VILLA</a>; from Webb County;4th district (04-07-00465-CV, 273 SW3d 385, 09-17-08) Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment. Per Curiam Opinion<br /><br /><span style="COLOR: rgb(153,0,0); FONT-WEIGHT: bold">FORMER EMPLOYEE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE (WHAT ELSE IS NEW?)</span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-In-Re-Polymerica-LLC-Tex-2009-per-curiam-arbitration-mandamus-granted.html">In Re Polymerica, LLC</a>, No. 08-1064 (Tex. Oct. 23, 2009)(per curiam) (<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-arbitration-mandamus.html">arbitration mandamus granted</a>) IN RE POLYMERICA, LLC D/B/A GLOBAL ENTERPRISES, INC.; from El Paso County; 8th district (08-08-00070-CV, 271 SW3d 442, 11-25-08) stay order of February 24, 2009 lifted Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral<br />argument, the Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus. Per Curiam Opinion<br /><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153); FONT-WEIGHT: bold"><br />ORDERS ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING</span><br /><br /><span style="COLOR: rgb(153,0,0)"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">EVEN ODD MINI-SUPPL-OPS WILL BOOST THE PRODUCTIVITY STATS: SUPREMES ISSUE PER CURIAM ON MOTION FOR REHEARING THAT DOES NOT EVEN CITE ORIGINAL OPINION, AND DOES NOT SAY WHO O'CONNOR IS</span></span><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold"> (no, it's not the former U.S. Supreme Court Justice) </span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-In-Re-Houston-Pipe-Line-Company-Tex-2009-Mini-Opinion-on-Motion-for-Rehearing.html">In Re Houston Pipe Line Co, LP.</a>, No. 08-0800 (Tex. Oct. 23, 2009)(per curiam) (opinion on denial of motion for rehearing) (<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-discovery-and-arbitration.html">limited discovery prior to arbitration sometimes permissible</a>) IN RE HOUSTON PIPE LINE COMPANY, L.P., ET AL.; from Victoria County;13th district (13-07-00299-CV & 13-07-00362-CV, 269<br />SW3d 90, 08-26-08). Supplemental Per Curiam OpinionWOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281586307952194922.post-8113005807810079062009-10-02T11:08:00.000-07:002009-10-25T06:46:56.121-07:00Texas Supreme Court's Petition Denials So Far for FY 2009-2010<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-weight: bold;"></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-weight: bold;"></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-weight: bold;"></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-weight: bold;"></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-weight: bold;"><br />The Texas Supreme Court has only issued a single opinion in the new fiscal year (which began September 1) - a <a href="http://texas-opinions.blogspot.com/2009/09/in-re-union-pacific-rr-co-tex-2009.html">per curiam mandamus grant in a discovery dispute</a>. The Court has already denied dozens of petitions for review (PFRs) however. (list updated Oct. 19, 2009)</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-weight: bold;"></div><br /><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-weight: bold;">To wit:<br /><br /></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-weight: bold;"></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-weight: bold;"></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"></span> </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"></span> </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS FOR REVIEW WERE DENIED OCT 16, 2009:</span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></span></div><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-weight: bold;"> </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><br />09-0575 </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/02-07-00355-CV-essential-terms-of-contract-indefiniteness-argument-rejected-meeting-of-the-minds.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >BOBBY FERACHI v. SHAWN CADY</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >; from Denton County;2nd district (</span><a href="http://www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=21558"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >02-07-00355-CV</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 05-28-09)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/02-07-00355-CV-essential-terms-of-contract-indefiniteness-argument-rejected-meeting-of-the-minds.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >contract for purchase of interest in </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/02-07-00355-CV-essential-terms-of-contract-indefiniteness-argument-rejected-meeting-of-the-minds.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >houseboat unsuccessfully challenged as indefinite and unenforceable</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-contract-essential-terms-indefiniteness.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >indefiniteness of </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-contract-essential-terms-indefiniteness.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >contract, meeting of the minds element</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-JNOV.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >JNOV</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br /></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >09-0612 </span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/05-07-01578-pet-denied-action-for-the-price-of-goods-merchants-B2B.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >NAZARETH INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC. AND J.C. PENNEY CORPORATION, INC</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >.; from Collin County;5th district (05-07-01578-CV, 287 SW3d 452, 06-12-09) as redrafted (action for the price of goods, merchant business-to-business sales)<br /><br /></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >09-0621 </span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/04-08-00587-CV-pet-denied-Oct-2009-responsible-third-party-designation-limitiations-SJ-reversed-no-res-judicata.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >BIELA'S GLASS AND ALUMINUM PRODUCTS, INC. AND ALERT LOCK AND KEY v. </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/04-08-00587-CV-pet-denied-Oct-2009-responsible-third-party-designation-limitiations-SJ-reversed-no-res-judicata.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >SONIA VALVERDE</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >; from Bexar County;4th district (</span><a href="http://www.4thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=22498"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >04-08-00587-CV</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" > & 04-08-00857-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 06-10-09, pet denied Oct 2009) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-responsible-third-party-designation.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >designation of responsible third party, timelines</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-limitations.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >limitations</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-res-judicata-doctrine.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >res judicata</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br /></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >09-0663 </span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/05-08-00915-CV-pet-denied-Oct-2009-breach-of-promissory-note-personal-guaranty.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >MICHAEL G. BYBOTH v. WOOD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AMS STAFF LEASING, </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/05-08-00915-CV-pet-denied-Oct-2009-breach-of-promissory-note-personal-guaranty.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >INC.; AND CHARLES D. WOOD, JR.</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >; from Collin County;5th district (05-08-00915-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 05-21-09)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-promissory-note-suit.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >breach of promissory note</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-personal-guaranty-promissory-note.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >personal </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-personal-guaranty-promissory-note.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >guaranty</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-findings-of-fact-FOF.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >findinds of fact and conclusions of law</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >).<br /><br /></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >09-0674</span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/04-08-00146-CV-pet-denied-Oct-2009-employment-at-will-no-contract-hence-no-breach-IIED-claims-also-fails.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >JOHN CLYDE GUERRA v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. AND ED GARZA, </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/04-08-00146-CV-pet-denied-Oct-2009-employment-at-will-no-contract-hence-no-breach-IIED-claims-also-fails.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AGENT FOR WAL-MART</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >; from Starr County;4th district (</span><a href="http://www.4thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=22063"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >04-08-00146-CV</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 07-01-09, pet. denied Oct 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-employment.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >employment </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-employment.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >dispute</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-employment-at-will.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >at will employment, no employment contract</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" > - no breach of contract, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-agency.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >no agency</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, actual or </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-apparent-authority.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >apparent authority to enter contract</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" > for life-long employment, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-IIED-intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >intentional infliction of </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-IIED-intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >emotional distress claim</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" > fails on appeal)<br /><br /></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >09-0680 </span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/05-07-00428-CV-pet-denied-Oct-2009-disbarment-affirmed.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >WILLIAM D. BEARD v. COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-07-00428-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 03-17-09, pet denied Oct 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-attorney-discipline-disciplinary-proceediing-disbarment-reinstatement.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >disbarment affirmed</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-limitations.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >affirmative defense of limitations waived by failure to plead it</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >,</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-trial-amendment.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >trial amendment denied as prejudicial</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br /></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >09-0682 </span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >ROY JONES v. POLK MECHANICAL COMPANY, LLC; from Bexar County;4th district (</span><a href="http://www.4thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=22430"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >04-08-00509-CV</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 07-01-09, pet. denied Oct 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-discovery-rule.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >limitations discovery rule</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-standing-doctrine.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >standing issue</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" > as basis for summary judgment)<br /><br /></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >09-0718 </span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><a href="http://www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/pdfOpinion.asp?OpinionID=20490"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >R.W. ROGERS, SR. v. LAYNE HARWELL AND NELDA HARRIS</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >; from Tarrant County; 2nd district (</span><a href="http://www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=22469"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >02-08-00376-CV</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 05-28-09, pet denied Oct 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-prisoner-suits.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >prisoner's malpractice suit against criminal defense attorney properly dismissed</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >) </span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ></span> </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="font-size:85%;"></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span class="text"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 51);"><span style="line-height: 26px;font-size:85%;" ></span></span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 51);font-size:85%;" ></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span class="text"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><br />THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS FOR REVIEW WERE DENIED OCT 9, 2009:</span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"> </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span class="text"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><br />09‑0424 </span></span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span class="text"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/02-09-00015-CV-pet-denied-Oct-2009-untimely-notice-of-appeal-requires-dismissal-for-want-of-jurisdiction.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >FREDRICK GILANI v. MOJGAN JALAILI-NAEINI</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >; from Denton County;2nd district (</span><a href="http://www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=22789"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >02‑09‑00015‑CV</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 03‑19‑09, pet denied Oct 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-appellate-deadline-due-date-of-notice-of-appeal.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >untimely notice of appeal, jurisdictional dismissal required</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span class="text"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >09‑0507 </span></span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span class="text"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >CARLOS A.L. VAUGHN v. NATRENIA L. HICKS, ET AL.; from Anderson County;14th district (</span><a href="http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=90860"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >14‑08‑00726‑CV</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 04‑16‑09)</span><a href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/14thCoA-2009-Vaughn-v-Hicks-PC-inmate-suit-dismissal-with-prejudice-reformed-without-prejudice.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Vaughn v. Hicks (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 16, 2009, pet. denied Oct 2009</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >)(per curiam) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-pro-se-suits.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >pro se prisoner suit</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" > should have been </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-dismissal-with-prejudice-vs-without-prejudice.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >dismissed without prejudice, rather than with </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-dismissal-with-prejudice-vs-without-prejudice.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >prejudice</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span class="text"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >09‑0551 </span></span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span class="text"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/08-06-00171-CV-pet-denied-property-division-in-divorce-constructive-fraud-offset-reimbursement-claims.mht"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >CLAIRE STANARD PHILLIPS v. TROY D. PHILLIPS</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >; from Dallas County;8th district (</span><a href="http://www.8thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=69550"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >08‑06‑00171‑CV</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 03‑26‑09, pet. denied Oct 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-divorce-property-division.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >divorce property division</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-community-property-presumption.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >characterization of property</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-fraud.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >constructive fraud</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, offset </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-reimbursement-claim-in-divorce-property-division.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >reimbursement claims</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span class="text"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >09‑0624 </span></span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span class="text"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/11-08-00252-CV-pet-denied-Oct-2009-inmate-suit-re-contaminated-food-dismissal-affirmed.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >BOBBY LUCKY v. KITCHEN CAPTAIN HAINES ET AL</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >.; from Taylor County;11th district (</span><a href="http://www.11thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=8518"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >11‑08‑00252‑CV</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 05‑07‑09, pet. denied Oct 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-prisoner-suits.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >inmate suit</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" > re: contaminated food, dismissal affirmed)<br /><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span class="text"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >09‑0631 </span></span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span class="text"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/09-07-00566-CV-pet-denied-Oct-2009-breach-of-retail-installment-contract-sj-for-pl-affirmed.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >ELIJAH W. RATCLIFF v. LHR, INC.</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >; from Polk County;9th district (</span><a href="http://www.9thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=11433"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >09‑07‑00566‑CV</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 05‑28‑09, pet. denied Oct 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-consumer-law.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >debt suit, breach of retail installment contract</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, summary judgment for plaintiff suing as assignee affirmed, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-no-evidence-motion-for-summary-judgment.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >no-evidence motion for summary judgment</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" > on counterclaim granted and affirmed, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-adequacy-of-time-for-discovery.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >adequacy of time prior to no-evidence summary judgment</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span class="text"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >09‑0656 </span></span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span class="text"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >GEORGE DIEHL DOLAN v. ZELIE M. DOLAN; from Harris County;1st district (</span><a href="http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=90529"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >01‑07‑00694‑CV</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 06‑18‑09, pet. denied Oct 2009) </span><a href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/1stCoA-2009-Dolan-v-Dolan-by-Higley-trustee-breach-of-fiduciary-duty-preservation-of-error-issues.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Dolan v. Dolan (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jun. 18, 2009. pet. denied Oct 2009</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-probate.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >probate law</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, trustee, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-breach-of-fiduciary-duty.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >breach of fiduciary duty</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-preservation-of-error-for-appeal.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >preservation of error</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span class="text"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >09‑0687 </span></span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span class="text"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/06-08-00121-CV-pet-denied-Oct-2009-probate-litigation-removal-of-admistratrix-attorneys-fees-no-appellate-sanctions.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >BOBBIE WASHINGTON v. ANNIE MARIE GARRETT SMITH, ET AL</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >.; from Harrison County; 6th district (</span><a href="http://www.6thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=7859"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >06‑08‑00121‑CV</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, 289 SW3d 362, 06‑30‑09, pet denied Oct 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-probate.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >probate litigation</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-trustee-removal.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >removal of administratrix, dependent, independent administration of estate</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, attorneys fees, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-sanctions-on-appeal.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >appellate sanctions denied</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span class="text"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >09‑0727 </span></span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span class="text"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/08-08-00093-CV-pet-denied-Oct-2009-pro-se-litigants-same-standards.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >JOHN FOX v. CITY OF EL PASO, THOMAS MAGUIRE, WILLIAM STERN, MARIO </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/08-08-00093-CV-pet-denied-Oct-2009-pro-se-litigants-same-standards.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >D'AGOSTINO, SAM JARVIS AND JOHN DOE(S)</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >; from El Paso County;8th district (</span><a href="http://www.8thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=70180"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >08‑08‑00093‑CV</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 07‑22‑09, pet. denied Oct 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-pro-se-appeals.html"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >defective appellate briefing, pro se litigants held to the same standards</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >) </span></span></span></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"> </div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;" class="text"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br />THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS FOR REVIEW WERE </span><span style="line-height: 17px;">DENIED OCT. 2, 2009</span></span></span><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><br /><br />09-0589<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/02-08-00294-CV-pet-denied-Oct-2009-zoning-board-decision-appeal.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >ABDER EL HAMAD v. COMMERCIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, A DIVISION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF FORT WORTH</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >; from Tarrant County; 2nd district (</span><a href="http://www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=22303"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >02-08-00294-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 05-14-09, pet. denied Oct 2009) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-zoning-disputes-land-use-regulation.html"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >zoning board decision appeal</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br />09-0615 </span><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/13-08-00254-CV-pet-denied-Oct-2009-PI-affirmative-defense-assumption-of-risk-release.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >KATHRYN ANN RACKLEY v. ADVANCED CYCLING CONCEPTS, INC. D/B/A PUMP IT UP!</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >; from Dallas County; 13th district (</span><a href="http://www.13thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=17547"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >13-08-00254-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 03-19-09, pet. denied Oct 2009) (PI affirmative defense of assumption of risk, release)<br /><br />09-0629<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/05-06-01041-CV-pet-denied-Oct-2009-untimely-notice-of-appeal-nets-dismissal-for-want-of-jurisdiction.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >HEALTHSOUTH MEDICAL CENTER AND HEALTHSOUTH PLANO REHABILITATION HOSPITAL v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS L.L.P. AND ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE INSURANCE PLC</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-06-01041-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 08-31- 07, pet. denied Oct 2009)<br /><br />09-0632<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/03-08-00573-CV-pet-denied-Oct-2009-pro-se-deemed-admissions-failure-to-show-good-cause-for-withdrawal.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >APRIL AND JOSHUA RAY VAN HOOSE v. VANDERBILT MORTGAGE AND FINANCE, INC.</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >; from Milam County; 3rd district (</span><a href="http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=14078"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >03-08-00573-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 05-08-09, pet. denied Oct 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-deemed-admissions.html"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >deemed admissions, failure to show good cause for withdrawal</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-pro-se-suits.html"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >pro se suit</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br />09-0689 </span><br /><a href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/14thCoA-2009-Zamarripa-v-Zamarripa-by-Boyce-characterization-of-community-vs-separate-property-division-of-retirement-benefits.html"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >JIMMY ZAMARRIPA v. SYLVIA ZAMARRIPA</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >; from Fort Bend County; 14th district (</span><a href="http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=90256"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >14-08-00083-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 06-30-09, pet. denied Oct 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-divorce-property-division.html"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >divorce marital property law, dispute over characterization and division of retirement benefits</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, separate vs. community property, </span><a href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/14thCoA-2009-Zamarripa-v-Zamarripa-by-Boyce-characterization-of-community-vs-separate-property-division-of-retirement-benefits.html"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >presumption of community property not rebutted</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, QDRO)<br /><br />09-0712<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/11-08-00294-CV-pet-denied-Oct-2009-termination-of-parental-rights-parent-in-jail.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >IN THE INTEREST OF D.H., S.H. AND B.H., CHILDREN</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >; from Taylor County; 11th district (</span><a href="http://www.11thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=8561"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >11-08-00294-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 07-30-09, pet. denied Oct 2009) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-termination-of-parental-rights.html"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >termination of parental rights</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, incarcerated parent, bench warrant)<br /><br />09-0722 </span><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/11-07-00317-CV-pet-denied-Oct-2009-real-estate-contract-dispute-attorneys-fees-segregation-issue.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >ANNETTE MCCARTY v. CLINTON T. MONTGOMERY, AS MANAGING TRUSTEE OF THE TRIMONT IRREVOCABLE TRUSTS AND ELTON MONTGOMERY, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDENT</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >; from Palo Pinto County; 11th district (</span><a href="http://www.11thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=8183"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >11-07-00317-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >, 290 SW3d 525, 06-11- 09, pet. denied Oct 2009)</span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;font-size:85%;" ><br /></span><span class="text"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 51); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 26px;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /></span></span></span><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS FOR REVIEW WERE DENIED SEP. 25, 2009:<br /></span><br /></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >08-0755<br />CITY OF DEL RIO v. CLAYTON SAM COLT HAMILTON TRUST, BY AND THROUGH ITS TRUSTEE, J.R. HAMILTON; from Val Verde County; 4th district (</span><a href="http://www.4thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=20895"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >04-06-00782-CV</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, 269 SW3d 613, 02-27-08, pet. denied Sep. 2009, pet. denied Sep. 2009)<br /><br />08-0881<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/11-06-00342-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-juvenile-case-unauthorized-use-of-vehicle.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >IN THE MATTER OF T.A., A JUVENILE</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Midland County; 11th district (</span><a href="http://www.11thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=7849"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >11-06-00342-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 09-04-08, pet. denied Sep. 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-juveniles.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >juvenile case, delinquent conduct</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" > by committing the offense of unauthorized use of a vehicle on six separate occasions) as redrafted<br /><br />08-0917<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/08-05-00302-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-SAPCR-modification-confirmation-of-child-support-arrears.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >IN THE INTEREST OF J.I.M., A MINOR</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from El Paso County; 8th district (</span><a href="http://www.8thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=69271"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >08-05-00302-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, 281 SW3d 504, 08-21-08, pet. denied Sep. 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-SAPCR-litigation-appeals.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >SAPCR modification</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-child-support.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >child support arrears</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br />08-0940<br /></span><a href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/1stCoA-2007-Tennesee-Gas-Pipeline-Co-v-Technip-USA-Corp-by-Higley-BoC-counter-claim.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY v. TECHNIP USA CORPORATION AND TECHNIP, </span></a><a href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/1stCoA-2007-Tennesee-Gas-Pipeline-Co-v-Technip-USA-Corp-by-Higley-BoC-counter-claim.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >S. </span></a><a href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/1stCoA-2007-Tennesee-Gas-Pipeline-Co-v-Technip-USA-Corp-by-Higley-BoC-counter-claim.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >A.</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Harris County; 1st district (</span><a href="http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=89182"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >01-06-00535-CV</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 12-21-07, pet. denied Sep. 2009)(commercial breach of contract dispute, parent guaranty) 2 petitions<br /><br />09-0037<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/05-07-00758-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-breach-of-indenture-agreement.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >AIG ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >.; from Dallas County; 5th district (</span><a href="http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/as_web.exe?C05_CASE.ASK+D+8418143"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >05-07-00758-CV</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, 270 SW3d 632, 08-21-08, pet. denied Sep. 2009) (breach of indenture agreement)<br /><br />09-0050<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/07-07-0039-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-erroneous-dismissal-with-prejudice-vs-without-res-judicata-effect.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >JOHNNY RODRIGUEZ, JR. v. ICON BENEFIT ADMINISTRATORS, INC.</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Lubbock County; 7th district (</span><a href="http://www.7thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=10560"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >07-07-00039-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 10-15-08, pet. denied Sep. 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/07-07-0039-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-Dissent-does-erroneous-dismissal-with-prejudice-have-res-judicata-effect.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >dissenting </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/07-07-0039-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-Dissent-does-erroneous-dismissal-with-prejudice-have-res-judicata-effect.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >opinion</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >)(does erroneous </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-dismissal-with-prejudice-vs-without-prejudice.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >dismissal with prejudice, as opposed to dismissal without prejudice</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, have </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-res-judicata-doctrine.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >res judicata effect</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >?)<br /><br />09-0085<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/05-07-01220-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-submission-of-alter-ego-single-business-enterprise-issues-to-jury.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >DICK'S LAST RESORT OF THE WEST END, INC., DICK'S LAST RESORT OF DALLAS, INC., </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/05-07-01220-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-submission-of-alter-ego-single-business-enterprise-issues-to-jury.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >DICK'S LAST RESORT OF TEXAS, INC., DICK'S LAST RESORT OF CHICAGO, INC., DICK'S </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/05-07-01220-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-submission-of-alter-ego-single-business-enterprise-issues-to-jury.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >HOLDING COMPANY, INC. AND STEVEN SCHIFF v. MARKET/ROSS, LTD. AND WILLIAM H. </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/05-07-01220-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-submission-of-alter-ego-single-business-enterprise-issues-to-jury.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >NABORS</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Dallas County; 5th district (</span><a href="http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/as_web.exe?C05_CASE.ASK+D+8692119"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >05-07-01220-CV</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;font-size:85%;" >, 273 SW3d 905, 12-31-08, pet. denied Sep. 2009) (submission of issues to the jury, affirmative defenses)<br /><br />09-0104<br /></span><a style="font-weight: normal;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/03-07-00576-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-UDJA-exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies-jurisdicition-of-trial-court.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >MARBLE FALLS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. ROBERT SCOTT, HONORABLE<br /></span></a><a style="font-weight: normal;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/03-07-00576-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-UDJA-exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies-jurisdicition-of-trial-court.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS, THORNTON KEEL, DONNA </span></a><a style="font-weight: normal;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/03-07-00576-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-UDJA-exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies-jurisdicition-of-trial-court.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >KEEL, MICHAEL HELLRUNG, DONNA HELLRUNG, WILLIAM PASCHALL, DAVID WOMACK, </span></a><a style="font-weight: normal;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/03-07-00576-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-UDJA-exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies-jurisdicition-of-trial-court.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >NATALIE KLOSS, DARRYL HUBBELL AND AMY HUBBELL</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Travis County; 3rd district (</span><a href="http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=13329"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >03-</span></a><a href="http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=13329"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >07-00576-CV</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, 275 SW3d 558, 11-14-08, pet. denied Sep. 2009)<br /><br />09-0138<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/03-04-00240-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-UDJA-allocation-agreement-water-law.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >CITY OF AUSTIN, ET AL. v. NORTHWEST AUSTIN MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ET<br />AL.; from Travis County; 3rd district (</span><a href="http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=10452"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >03-04-00240-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, 274 SW3d 820, 11-14-08, pet. denied Sep. 2009) 2 petition motion to amend petition for review denied ("allocation agreement" under section 54.016(f) of the </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-water.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >Texas Water Code</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br />09-0248<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/10-05-00197-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-med-mal-dismissal-attorneys-fees.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >DEWAYNE FUNDERBURK, AS NEXT FRIEND OF WHITNEY FUNDERBURK v. RORY LEWIS, M. </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/10-05-00197-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-med-mal-dismissal-attorneys-fees.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >D</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >.; from Limestone County; 10th district (</span><a href="http://www.10thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=7629"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >10-05-00197-CV</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 12-31-08, pet. denied Sep. 2009) 2 petitions (med-mal suit)<br /><br />09-0325<br /></span><a href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/14thCoA-2009-Horizon-Offshore-Constractors-Inc-v-Aon-Risk-Services-of-Texas-Inc-by-Frost-BoFD-election-of-remedies-estoppel.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >AON RISK SERVICES OF TEXAS, INC. v. HORIZON OFFSHORE CONTRACTORS, INC. AND </span></a><a href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/14thCoA-2009-Horizon-Offshore-Constractors-Inc-v-Aon-Risk-Services-of-Texas-Inc-by-Frost-BoFD-election-of-remedies-estoppel.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >HORIZON VESSELS, INC.</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Harris County; 14th district (</span><a href="http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=89647"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >14-07-00549-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, 283 SW3d 53, 03-12-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-breach-of-fiduciary-duty.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >breach of fiduciary duty</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-election-of-remedies.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >election of remedies</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-judicial-estoppel.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >judicial </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-judicial-estoppel.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >estoppel</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br />09-0329<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/02-07-00052-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-water-code-immunity-issue.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >TRINITY RIVER AUTHORITY OF TEXAS v. BOYER, INC</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >.; from Tarrant County; 2nd district (</span><a href="http://www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=20908"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >02-07-00052-CV</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, 279 SW3d 354, 01-17-08, pet. denied Sep. 2009)<br /><br />09-0335<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/03-07-00228-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-construction-law-insurance-subrogation-rights-issue.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >H.C. BECK PARTNERS, LTD. v. AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Travis County; 3rd district (</span><a href="http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=12978"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >03-07-00228-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 03-13-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009)(with </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/03-07-00228-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-Dissenting-Opinion-subrogation-rights-issue.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >dissenting opinion by Henson</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-construction.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >breach of construction contract claim</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, subrogation rights)<br /><br />09-0383<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/03-05-00786-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-special-exceptions-opinion-on-remand.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >EMORY B. PERRY, ET AL. v. DARRYL R. COHEN, ET AL</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >.; from Travis County; 3rd district (</span><a href="http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=11853"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >03-05-00786-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, 285 SW3d 137, 03-26-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/03-05-00786-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-Concurring-Opinions-special-exceptions-shareholder-suit.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >concurring opinion</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >) (Justice Hecht not sitting)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-special-exceptions.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >special exceptions</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br />09-0386<br /></span><a style="font-weight: normal;" href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/1stCoA-2009-Somers-v-Crane-by-Jennings-shareholder-suit-BoFD-claim-class-action-standing.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >RAYMOND SOMERS, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF EGL, INC. v. JAMES R. CRANE,<br /></span></a><a style="font-weight: normal;" href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/1stCoA-2009-Somers-v-Crane-by-Jennings-shareholder-suit-BoFD-claim-class-action-standing.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >MILTON CARROLL, JAMES C. FLAGG, FRANK J. HEVRDEJS, PAUL W. HOBBY, MICHAEL K. </span></a><a style="font-weight: normal;" href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/1stCoA-2009-Somers-v-Crane-by-Jennings-shareholder-suit-BoFD-claim-class-action-standing.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >JHIN, NEIL E. KELLEY, SHERMAN WOLFF, CENTERBRIDGE PARTNERS, L.P., THE </span></a><a style="font-weight: normal;" href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/1stCoA-2009-Somers-v-Crane-by-Jennings-shareholder-suit-BoFD-claim-class-action-standing.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >WOODBRIDGE CO. LTD. AND NOMINAL DEFENDANT EGL, INC</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >.; from Harris County; 1st district (</span><a href="http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=90611"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >01-07-00754-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 03-26-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-shareholder-derivative-actions.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >shareholder </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-shareholder-derivative-actions.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >derivative suit, breach of fiduciary duty, standing</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;font-size:85%;" >) 2 petitions<br /><br />- consolidated with -<br /><br />09-0394<br /></span><a style="font-weight: normal;" href="http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/pdfOpinion.asp?OpinionID=86470"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >RAYMOND SOMERS, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF EGL, INC. v. JAMES R. CRANE,<br /></span></a><a style="font-weight: normal;" href="http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/pdfOpinion.asp?OpinionID=86470"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >MILTON CARROLL, JAMES C. FLAGG, FRANK J. HEVRDEJS, PAUL W. HOBBY, MICHAEL K.<br /></span></a><a style="font-weight: normal;" href="http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/pdfOpinion.asp?OpinionID=86470"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >JHIN, NEIL E. KELLEY, SHERMAN WOLFF, CENTERBRIDGE PARTNERS, L.P., THE<br /></span></a><a style="font-weight: normal;" href="http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/pdfOpinion.asp?OpinionID=86470"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >WOODBRIDGE CO. LTD. AND NOMINAL DEFENDANT EGL, INC</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >.; from Harris County; 1st<br />district (</span><a href="http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=91077"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >01-08-00119-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 03-26-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009) (plea to the jurisdiction on the ground that Somers </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-shareholder-derivative-actions.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >lacked standing to sue derivatively</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-special-exceptions.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >spe</span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-special-exceptions.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >cial exceptions, motion to dismiss</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br />09-0390<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/01-08-00717-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-no-final-judgment-appeal-dismissed.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. SANDRA DEBOSE</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Harris County; 1st district (</span><a href="http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=91693"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >01-08-00717-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 03-26-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-finality-of-order-deadline-to-file-notice-of-appeal.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >no final judgment, appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br />09-0398<br /></span><a href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/1stCoA-2008-Hartford-Fire-Ins-Co-v-C-Springs-300-by-Radack-construction-bonds.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >C. SPRINGS 300, LTD. v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Harris County; 1st district (</span><a href="http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=88672"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >01-06-00065-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, 287 SW3d 771, 04-16-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-construction.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >construction law, bonding</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br />09-0423<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/14-07-00621-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-Public-Information-Act-PIA.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >GLORIA CELESTE LOVING v. CITY OF HOUSTON</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Harris County; 14th district (</span><a href="http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=89715"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >14-07-</span></a><a href="http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=89715"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >00621-CV</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="line-height: 17px;">, 282 SW3d 555, 01-08-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009)</span><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (</span></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-PIA.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >Public Information Act (PIA) pka open records act</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >) </span></span><span style="line-height: 17px; font-weight: normal;"><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >09-0434<br /></span></span><a style="font-weight: normal;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/01-06-00002-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-lease-dispute-attorneys-fees.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >LILLIAN MARIAN FOOTE TIGARD, ET AL. v. SEYED HASSAN MOOSAVIDEEN</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Harris County; 1st district (</span><a href="http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=88610"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >01-06-00002-CV</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="line-height: 17px;">, ___ SW3d ___, 11-20-08, pet. denied Sep. 2009)</span><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (</span></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-leases.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >lease law</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-real-estate-transactions.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >real estate transactions and litigation, purchase option</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >) </span></span><span style="line-height: 17px; font-weight: normal;"><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >09-0484<br /></span></span><a style="font-weight: normal;" href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/14thCoA-2009-Stinson-v-Ins-Co-of-State-of-Penn-by-Boyce-workers-comp-denial-administrative-remedies-exhaustion-plea-juris-grant-was-error.html"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, GALLAGHER BASSETT </span></a><a style="font-weight: normal;" href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/14thCoA-2009-Stinson-v-Ins-Co-of-State-of-Penn-by-Boyce-workers-comp-denial-administrative-remedies-exhaustion-plea-juris-grant-was-error.html"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >SERVICES, INC. AND BELINDA YBARRA v. SUE ANN STINSON</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Harris County; 14th district (</span><a href="http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=89786"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >14-07-00698-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, 286 SW3d 77, 04-30-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009) (extra-contractual claims against appellees the Insurance Company)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-workers-comp.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >workers compensation denial of claim</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >failure to exhaust available administrative remedies</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br />09-0492<br /></span><a style="font-weight: normal;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/05-07-01735-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-res-judicata-collateral-judicial-estoppel-ratification.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >MOTIENT CORPORATION v. HIGHLAND CRUSADER OFFSHORE PARTNERS, L.P.; </span></a><a style="font-weight: normal;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/05-07-01735-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-res-judicata-collateral-judicial-estoppel-ratification.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >HIGHLAND EQUITY FOCUS FUND, L.P.; HIGHLAND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P.; HIGHLAND<br /></span></a><a style="font-weight: normal;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/05-07-01735-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-res-judicata-collateral-judicial-estoppel-ratification.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >.; from Dallas County; 5th district (</span><a href="http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/as_web.exe?C05_CASE.ASK+D+8998937"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >05-07-01735-CV</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, 281 SW3d 237, 03-06-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009) (res judicata, collateral estoppel, judicial estoppel, ratification)<br /><br />09-0498<br /></span><a href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/14thCoA-2009-Seymore-v-Seymore-by-Guzman-restricted-appeal-requisites-participation-at-trial-appearance-waiver-of-citation.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >BEDRIJE HAJDARI SEYMOUR v. FLOYD DAVID SEYMOUR</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Harris County; 14th district (</span><a href="http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=89382"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >14-07-00280-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 02-24-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-restricted-appeal.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >restricted appeal </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-restricted-appeal.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >requisites, non-participation at trial</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, waiver of citation, appearance)<br /><br />09-0503<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/03-08-00141-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-wreck-jury-verdict-prejudgment-interest-credit.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >RICHARD LOUIS SIMMONS AND LINDIG CONSTRUCTION AND TRUCKING, INC. v. EDMOND </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/03-08-00141-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-wreck-jury-verdict-prejudgment-interest-credit.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >L. BISLAND III AND RHONDA BISLAND</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Hays County; 3rd district (</span><a href="http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=13643"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >03-08-00141-CV</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 04-09-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009)(motor vehicle wreck, prejudgment interest)<br /><br />09-0509<br /></span><a href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/1stCoA-2009-Jay-Petroleum-LLC-v-EOG-Resources-Inc-by-Alcala-what-are-reasonable-attorneys-fees-what-not-excessive-hours.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >JAY PETROLEUM, L.L.C. v. EOG RESOURCES, INC. F/K/A ENRON OIL & GAS COMPANY</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Harris County; 1st district (</span><a href="http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=91529"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >01-08-00541-CV</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 05-07-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009)(scope of remand, implications of relief requested or not prayed for in court of appeals, remand of counterclaims, attorney's fees, fact issue as to reasonableness of attorney's fees, inflated number of hours claimed, controverting countervailing fee affidavit by attorney) (Justice O'Neill not sitting, pet. denied Sep. 2009)<br /><br />09-0527<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/06-08-00073-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-arbitration-award-confirmation-manifest-disregard-gross-mistake-as-grounds-for-vacatur.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >XTRIA LLC v. INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE ALLIANCE INCORPORATED</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Dallas County; 6th district (</span><a href="http://www.6thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=7744"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >06-08-00073-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, 286 SW3d 583, 05-15-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-arbitration.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >arbitration award confirmation</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;font-size:85%;" >, manifest disregard of the law by arbitrator, gross mistake as grounds for vacatur discussed)<br /><br />09-0546<br /></span><a style="font-weight: normal;" href="http://www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLOpinion.asp?OpinionID=20262"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >SALLY DOE v. TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS, INC. AND TEXAS ASSOCIATION<br /></span></a><a style="font-weight: normal;" href="http://www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLOpinion.asp?OpinionID=20262"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >OF SCHOOL BOARDS RISK MANAGEMENT FUND</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Denton County; 2nd district (</span><a href="http://www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=22254"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >02-08-00266-CV</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, 283 SW3d 451, 03-05-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009) (sex assault on pupil, indemnity)<br /><br />09-0548<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/10-09-00108-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-untimely-appeal-DWOJ.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >CLIFTON JERRY LANDRY v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE - INSTITUTIONAL </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/10-09-00108-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-untimely-appeal-DWOJ.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >DIVISION, COMMISSARY AND TRUST FUND DEPARTMENT, ET AL</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >.; from Walker County; 10th district (</span><a href="http://www.10thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=9280"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >10-09-00108-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 05-20-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-appellate-deadline-due-date-of-notice-of-appeal.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >untimely appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br />09-0553<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/09-07-00597-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-deed-interpretation-dispute.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >DERWEN RESOURCES, LLC AND SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CHILDREN, INC. v. CARRIZO </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/09-07-00597-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-deed-interpretation-dispute.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >OIL & GAS, INC.</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Liberty County; 9th district (</span><a href="http://www.9thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=11464"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >09-07-00597-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 05-28-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009) This dispute involves the </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-deed.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >interpretation of a deed conveying an </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-deed.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >interest</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" > in real estate, chain of title)<br /><br />09-0608<br /></span><a href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/1stCoA-2009-Mireles-v-Jack-by-Jennings-void-same-sex-marriage-divorce-decree-collateral-attack-bill-of-review.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >ANDREW R. MIRELES v. JENNIFER S. MIRELES</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Harris County; 1st district (</span><a href="http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=91466"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >01-08-00499-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 04-02-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-void.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >void order</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, same-sex marriage divorce, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-collateral-attack-on-judgment.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >collateral attack on divorce judgment</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br />09-0611<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/01-08-00847-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-Bosch-v-Armstrong-defamation-judicial-proceedings-immunity.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >YIGAL BOSCH v. MARK S. ARMSTRONG, PAUL BAILIFF AND SQUIRE, SANDERS AND </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/01-08-00847-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-Bosch-v-Armstrong-defamation-judicial-proceedings-immunity.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >DEMPSEY, L.L.P</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >.; from Harris County; 1st district (</span><a href="http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=91823"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >01-08-00847-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 06-11- 09, pet. denied Sep. 2009)(suit barred by </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-judicial-communications-privilege.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >judicial communications tort immunity</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-judicial-communications-privilege.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >absolute privilege for communications in court proceeding</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, sanctions for baseless claim)<br /><br />09-0664<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/01-08-00470-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-premises-liability-crime-on-apartment-property-SJ-for-D-affirmed.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >XIAO YU ZHONG AND YING CHUN MA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF HONG YA </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/01-08-00470-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-premises-liability-crime-on-apartment-property-SJ-for-D-affirmed.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >ZHONG AND DAONAN HE, MINOR CHILDREN v. SUNBLOSSOM GARDENS, L.L.C. D/B/A </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/01-08-00470-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-premises-liability-crime-on-apartment-property-SJ-for-D-affirmed.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >SUNBLOSSOM GARDENS</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Harris County; 1st district (</span><a href="http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=91427"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >01-08-00470-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 04-30-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-premises-liability.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >premises liability, crime on apartment premises</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br />09-0666<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/05-07-01571-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-marital-property-agreement-enforceability-defenses-fraud-duress.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >BRUCE Q. MARTIN v. DENISE L. MARTIN</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Grayson County; 5th district (</span><a href="http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/as_web.exe?C05_CASE.ASK+D+8901152"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >05-07-01571-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, 287 SW3d 260, 04-13-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-marital-property-agreement.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >enforceability of marital property agreement</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >. fraud, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-duress-undue-influence.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >duress</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br />09-0676<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/02-08-00400-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-libel-per-se.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >JACK D. BROCK v. JULIE FREDERICK TANDY</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Tarrant County; 2nd district (</span><a href="http://www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=22534"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >02-08-00400-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 07-02-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-defamation-libel-slander.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >libel per se, actual malice</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br />09-0684<br /></span><a href="http://www.9thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLOpinion.asp?OpinionID=10097"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >IN RE COMMITMENT OF DON DAVIS, JR.</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Montgomery County; 9th district (</span><a href="http://www.9thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=11633"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >09-08-00124-CV</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 06-25-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009) (SVP commitment)<br /><br />09-0690<br /></span><a href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/14thCoA-2009-Sandhu-v-Pinglia-Investments-of-Texas-LLC-by-Seymore-breach-of-promissory-note-suit-summary-judgment.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >RAGHBIR SANDHU v. PINGLIA INVESTMENTS OF TEXAS, L.L.C. AND SUMMER PINGLIA</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Harris County; 14th district (</span><a href="http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=90350"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >14-08-00184-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 06-25-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-promissory-note-suit.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >promissory note suit</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, SJ for plaintiff affirmed) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-real-estate-transactions.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >commercial real estate transaction</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >: financing of purchase of shopping center, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-promissory-note-suit.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >suit for breach of promissory note</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, summary judgment procedure, affirmative defenses not properly asserted in response to Plaintiff's motion, proof of balance due and damages in note suit)<br /><br />09-0749<br />PHILL RAIJE RIAN v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES; from Williamson County; 3rd district (</span><a href="http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=13657"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >03-08-00155-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 07-31-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009) as corrected (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-termination-of-parental-rights.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >termination of parental rights affirmed</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/03-08-00155-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-Concurrenc-by-Patterson-multiple-grounds-for-termination.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >concurring opinion)</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;font-size:85%;" ><br /><br /></span><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS FOR REVIEW WERE DENIED SEP 18, 2009 :</span><br /><br /></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >09-0559<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/02-08-00021-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-SAPCR-divorce-appeal-JMC-specific-parental-rights.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >JEFFREY I. RUBINETT v. SHARON M. RUBINETT</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Tarrant County; 2nd district (</span><a href="http://www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=21803"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >02-08-00021-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 05-14-09, pet. denied Sep 2009) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-SAPCR-litigation-appeals.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >SAPCR divorce case, allocation of specific parental rights</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br />09-0565<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/03-06-00572-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-UDJA-challenge-to-annexation-ordinance.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >LONE STAR STORAGE TRAILER, II LTD. AND LONE STAR STORAGE TRAILER v. VILLAGE </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/03-06-00572-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-UDJA-challenge-to-annexation-ordinance.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >OF SALADO</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Bell County; 3rd district (</span><a href="http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=12504"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >03-06-00572-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 04-10-09, pet. denied Sep 2009) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-annexation.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >declaratory judgment action to declare annexation ordinance void</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br />09-0569<br />KRISTOFER THOMAS KASTNER v. THE KROGER COMPANY, ET AL.; from Harris County; 14th district (</span><a href="http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=91103"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >14-08-01001-CV</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 04-09-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009) (dismissal) (opinion not online)<br /><br />09-0578<br /></span><a href="http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/PDFOpinion.asp?OpinionId=85804"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >MICHAEL KENNEDY v. CHARLES STEEN AND DETECTIVE MUNNIZ, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL </span></a><a href="http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/PDFOpinion.asp?OpinionId=85804"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Anderson County; 14th district (</span><a href="http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=90744"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >14-08-00603-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 06-18-09, pet. denied Sep 2009) (</span><a href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/law-prisoner-suit-inmate-litigation.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >prison inmate litigation dismissal</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br />09-0587<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/03-06-00785-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-HCLC-denial-of-motion-to-dismiss-affirmed.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >JOHN KLOTZ STOKES, M.D. v. DAVID DELAROSA</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Travis County; 3rd district (</span><a href="http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=12722"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >03-06-00785-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 06-04-09, pet denied Sep. 2009) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-malpractice-medical.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >denial of motion to dismiss med-mal suit affirmed, expert report requirement</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br />09-0622<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/02-08-00279-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-additional-insured-is-insurer-liable-for-default-judgment-when-no-notice-of-claim.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >GARRY JENKINS v. STATE AND COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Tarrant<br />County; 2nd district (</span><a href="http://www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=22279"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >02-08-00279-CV</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="line-height: 17px;">, 287 SW3d 891, 06-11-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009) as redrafted</span><span style="line-height: 17px;"> </span><span style="line-height: 17px;">(default judgment against </span></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-additional-insured.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >additional insured</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-notice-of-claim.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >is insurer liable in the absence of notice?</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >)</span></span><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;font-size:85%;" ><br /></span><span style="line-height: 17px; font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >09-0711<br /></span></span><a style="font-weight: normal;" href="http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/pdfOpinion.asp?OpinionID=85518"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >RALPH O. DOUGLAS v. ELISE SELMA DOUGLAS</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Harris County; 14th district (</span><a href="http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=90426"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >14-08-00277-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 03-26-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009) (dismissal) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-appellate-deadline-due-date-of-notice-of-appeal.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >untimely notice of appeal</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-motion-to-extent-time-to-file-notice-of-appeal.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >motion for extension of time to file NoA</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br /></span><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS FOR REVIEW WERE DENIED SEP. 11, 2009:</span><br /><br /></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >09-0545<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/13-07-00240-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-divorce-decree-clarification-right-of-first-refusal.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >JAMES KENNETH COLLINS v. STACEY LEIGH COLLINS</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Montgomery County; 13th district (</span><a href="http://www.13thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=16723"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >13-07-00240-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 03-12-09, pet denied Sep. 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/Texas-family-law-post-judgment-divorce.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >clarification </span></a><a href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/Texas-family-law-post-judgment-divorce.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >of divorce decree</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-right-of-first-refusal.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >right </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-right-of-first-refusal.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >of first refusal</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >) motion to dismiss petition for review denied<br /><br />09-0556<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/08-07-00202-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-exclusion-of-testimony-required.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >USDR, INC. AND JOHN ROBINSON v. CABOT CAPITAL CORPORATION AND CABOT </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/08-07-00202-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-exclusion-of-testimony-required.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >ESTATES, LLC</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Tarrant County; 8th district (</span><a href="http://www.8thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=69927"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >08-07-00202-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 04-30-09, pet denied Sep. 2009) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-exclusion-of-evidence.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >witness testimony should have been excluded</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br />09-0619<br /></span><a style="font-weight: normal;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/13-00-00113-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-DWOP-and-denial-of-motion-to-reinstate-affirmed.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >MICHAEL JOSEPH LESSARD, DOROTHY ELAINE LESSARD, MONICA JEAN LESSARD AND<br /></span></a><a style="font-weight: normal;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/13-00-00113-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009-DWOP-and-denial-of-motion-to-reinstate-affirmed.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >JEANNE MARIA LESSARD v. VELSICOL CHEMICAL CORP</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >.; from Live Oak County; 13th district (</span><a href="http://www.13thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=6074"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >13-00-00113-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 04-23-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-DWOP-dismissal.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >DWOP and </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-DWOP-dismissal.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >denial of motion to reinstate</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;font-size:85%;" > affirmed)<br /><br /></span><span style="line-height: 17px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS FOR REVIEW WERE DENIED SEP. 4, 2009<br /></span><br /></span></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >09-0381<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/04-08-00259-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >JOHN A. LYONS v. LAURI D. LYONS; from Bexar County; </span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >4th district (</span><a href="http://www.4thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=22162"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >04-08-00259-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 01-14-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009) (divorce appeal, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-BRA.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >business records affidavit defective</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-findings-of-fact-FOF.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >findings of fact & conclusions of law</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-error-preservation-for-appeal.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >error preservation for appellate review</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >) as redrafted<br /><br />09-0385<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/03-08-00210-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >DONALD RAY MCCRAY v. HARRIS COUNTY, ET AL</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >.; from Travis County; 3rd district (</span><a href="http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=13708"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >03-08-00210-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 02-18-09 pet. denied Sep. 4, 2009) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-appellate-deadline-due-date-of-notice-of-appeal.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >untimely notice of appeal</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-DWOJ-appeal.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >no appellate jurisdiction</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >)<br /><br />09-0539<br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/04-08-00488-CV-pet-denied-Sep-2009.mht"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >GENERAL NEON SIGN COMPANY v. DAILEY & WELLS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Bexar County; 4th district (</span><a href="http://www.4thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=22412"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >04-08-00488-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 03-18-09, pet. denied Sep. 4, 2009) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-sufficiency-review.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >sufficiency of the evidence review</span></a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, measure of damages)<br /><br />09-0600<br /></span><a href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/1stCoA-2009-Leax-v-Leax-by-Keyes-marriage-divorce-fraud-annulment-based-on-concealment-of-numerous-prior-marriages-divorces-pattern-of-domestic-violence-allegations.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >ELAINE LEAX v. ROBERT W. LEAX</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >; from Harris County; 1st district (</span><a href="http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=91106"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >01-08-00149-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 06-11-09, pet. denied Sep. 4, 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/1stCoA-2009-Leax-v-Leax-by-Keyes-marriage-divorce-fraud-annulment-based-on-concealment-of-numerous-prior-marriages-divorces-pattern-of-domestic-violence-allegations.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >suit for </span></a><a href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/1stCoA-2009-Leax-v-Leax-by-Keyes-marriage-divorce-fraud-annulment-based-on-concealment-of-numerous-prior-marriages-divorces-pattern-of-domestic-violence-allegations.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >annulment, marriage and divorce fraud, serial wife divorcee, pattern of domestic violence </span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >allegations, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-fraudulent-concealment-tolling-of-SoL.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >concealment</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" > of numerous prior marriages, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-fraudulent-inducement.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:85%;" >fraud in the inducement</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14;" ><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">)</span><br /><br /><br /></span></span></span></span></div></span>WOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281586307952194922.post-58605720483995533882009-09-27T09:50:00.001-07:002009-10-01T07:10:52.212-07:00Discovery Mandamus Granted to Protect Trade Secrets: In Re Union Pacific Railroad Company (Tex. 2009)<strong><span style="color:#000099;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#000099;">AND THE FIRST WINNER IN THE NEW FISCAL YEAR IS -----------</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#000099;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#000099;">----- A </span></strong><strong><span style="color:#000099;">TORT DEFENDANT !</span></strong><br /><span style="color:#990000;"><strong></strong></span><br /><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>Texas Supreme Court Grants Mandamus Petition to Protect Railroad from Discovery Requests</strong> </span><br /><br /><span style="color:#000099;">In its first case decided with opinion in the new fiscal year, the <a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2009-Mandamus-Decisions-with-Opinions.html">Texas Supreme Court granted mandamus</a> relief last Friday to protect a corporate defendant from discovery requests propounded by a tort plaintiff in a suit stemming from a train collision and escape of toxic fumes. </span><br /><span style="color:#000099;"></span><br /><span style="color:#000099;">No surprises here. </span><br /><span style="color:#000099;"></span><br /><span style="color:#000099;">The Supreme Court (currently consisting of eight members pending appointment of a replacement for <a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Brister-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice.html">former Justice Scott Brister</a>) granted mandamus relief to validate the defendant's motion to quash even though the plaintiff's attorney had agreed to protect the company's trade secrets through an appropriate order of protection from disclosure to third parties. The San Antonio Court of Appeals had denied the railroad's petition for mandamus relief. </span><br /><span style="color:#000099;"></span><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-In-Re-Union-Pacific-RR-Co-Tex-2009-discocovery-mandamus-granted-to-protect-company-pricing-info.html">In Re Union Pacific Railroad Co.</a> No. <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29708">08-0740</a> (<a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/092509.asp">Tex. Sep. 25, 2009</a>) (<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2009-Per-Curiam-Opinions-Tex-Sup-Ct.html">per curiam</a>) (<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-discovery-mandamus.html">discovery mandamus granted</a> to <a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-trade-secrets.html">protect trade secrets, privilege</a>, pricing information)<br /><span style="font-size:85%;">IN RE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY; from Bexar County; </span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">4th district (<a href="http://www.4thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=22300">04-08-00388-CV</a>, ___ SW3d ___, 08-20-08) </span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Texas Supreme Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.</span><br /><br /><span style="color:#660000;">EXCERPT FROM THE PER CURIAM OPINION: </span><br /><br />The potential harm to Union Pacific due to possible disclosure is also problematic. Constanzo first points to the protective order. The trial court did enter an order restricting those who could view the rate structures, but that alone does not ensure that an order will not violate the trade secret privilege. See id. at 731–32 (granting mandamus relief where trial court ordered relator to disclose trade secrets only to three attorneys and an expert witness and only on paper that could not be photocopied).<br /><br />Constanzo claims the order is narrow, but we disagree.<br /><br />The order requires Union Pacific to release rate structures related to all hazardous materials shipped for OxiChem from June 2003 through June 2005. It also requires the release of all OxiChem rate structures for chlorine chemicals for the same time period. Worrell explained the potential harm associated with this disclosure: “Disclosure of the information would irreparably harm Union Pacific because it would provide competitors with an advantage in predicting Union Pacific pricing and undercutting Union Pacific efforts to market and conduct its business with its customers in a competitive fashion.”<br /><br />Constanzo failed to meet her burden of establishing that the rate structures are “material and necessary” to the case. Bass, 113 S.W.3d at 743. “[N]o adequate appellate remedy exists if a trial court orders a party to produce privileged trade secrets absent a showing of necessity.” Id. at 745. Accordingly, without hearing oral argument, Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(c), we conditionally grant Union Pacific’s petition for writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to vacate its May 9, 2008 order compelling production of rate structures and issue further orders consistent with this opinion. We are confident the trial court will comply. The writ will issue only if it fails to do so.<br />* * *<br /><span style="font-size:85%;">FN2: When Union Pacific filed its petition for writ of mandamus, underlying proceedings were pending in the 73rd Judicial District Court and the 288th Judicial District Court in Bexar County. Honorable Karen H. Pozza, presiding judge of the 407th Judicial District Court in Bexar County, signed the pretrial order at issue in this mandamus proceeding. When courts use central docketing, as in Bexar County, we generally treat the judge who signed the order as the respondent. </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-In-Re-Schmitz-by-Brister-shareholder-derivative-suit-presuit-notice-requirements-sufficiency-of-notice.html"><span style="font-size:85%;">In re Schmitz, 285 S.W.3d 451, 454 (Tex. 2009)</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">.</span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span>WOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281586307952194922.post-41980097396492939732009-08-28T12:09:00.001-07:002009-08-28T17:54:15.966-07:00Texas Supreme Court ends FY with more of the same<span style="font-size:130%;color:#cc0000;"><strong>A RAFT OF OPINIONS WITH LITTLE FANFARE</strong></span><br /><br />Following its annual tradition, the Texas Supreme Court this morning emitted a gust of opinions just in time for the impending end of the Fiscal Year. All justices save two attached their names to opinions of the Court. In addition, Phil Johnson weighed in with a dissent to the Court's resolution of <a href="http://texas-opinions.blogspot.com/2008/08/is-hospital-bed-medical-device.html">whether a hospital bed is a medical device for purposes of health care and/or premises liability</a>, an issue that badly split the supreme appellate body to the tune of five (5) separate opinion. A rare scenario - if not a first - in recent high court history. As is true of many cases accepted for supreme court scrutiny, there was disagreement (on the nature of the defective bed that caused a patient's fall and injury) in the court below as well.<br /><br />Only <a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Green-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Paul-Green.html">Justice Green </a>was missing from the roll of distinguished opinion authors. Perhaps he is too busy planning his re-election strategy. As hypothesized previously, with some empirical data in tow, <a href="http://texas-opinions.blogspot.com/2008/08/do-re-election-campaigns-undermine.html">the need to hit the campaign trail may undermine judicial productivity</a> (or at least provide a plausible excuse). Since they have already taken themselves out of their respective races, the electoral distraction does not apply to <a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Brister-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice.html">Justice Brister</a> and <a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-ONeill-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Harriet-O-Neill.html">Justice O'Neill</a>, who have workaholic credentials in any event (at least by high court standards) and each penned a signed opinion on behalf of the Court. Brister also wrote a dissent.<br /><br />The remainder of today's stack of opinions - long awaited after weeks of summerly lull - will make for interesting reading over the weekend, even if the case outcomes hold few if any surprises. Eleven opinions of the court delivered at once, not to mention concurrences and dissents, will tax the digestive capacity of any seasoned insta-pundit, not to mention the ordinary member of the attentive public or even regular court watcher.<br /><br />Upon preliminary perusal, there is an intriguing e-discovery mandamus with an opinion by Justice O'Neill delving into how electronic discovery issues are handled in federal courts; an oil & gas contract construction case precipitated by a dispute over fugitive gas; two opinions addressing entitlement to attorney's fees (or absence thereof), at least one with reference to "the American Rule."<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#000099;">THE AMERICAN RULE - TEXAS STYLE</span></strong><br /><br />While we are on the seemingly patriotic topic of the "American Rule" (each party pays its own attorneys fees as opposed to the loser-pays principle favored by Europeans and other aliens), there is even more in the Court's fiscal-year-ending jurisprudence: We get learn the Court's view on the effect of a nonsuit when filed by a health care provider as plaintiff where the consumer/defendant had filed a counterclaim before the trial court had signed the dimissal order. The Court's unsurprising resolution of that case makes for a nice complement to the cases in which members of the Court went out of their way to make sure a prevailing health care defendant gets to collect attorneys fees from the patient-plaintiff as a sanction - dead or alive - even if the med-mal suit merely failed for procedural reasons, such as a missed deadline for filing the requisite expert report.<br /><br />Did anyone suggest that there is a tad of a double standard? Not to mention - shall we say - preferential treatment of certain types of litigants - like Defendants? What a crude insinuation! Here, after all, one of the usual suspects appeared as the Plaintiff! The Court's critics better offer a more refined analysis of disposition patterns. After all, it's true: Plaintiff s don't always lose in the Texas Supreme Court -- especially not when they seek collection of a debt from a consumer. To all appearances, what matters is who you are - what category of litigant - not whether you are plaintiff or defendant, appellant or respondent. Sure, different statutory and nonstatutory considerations may be invoked, but those are malleable. And if the precedents don't fit, we can always change them. Then cite the new ready-made precedent in the next case down the road as authority. Indeed, there are a couple of those in today's offering.<br /><br /><span style="color:#000099;"><strong>WHO WON AND WHO LOST?</strong></span><br /><strong><span style="color:#000099;"></span></strong><br />On that score, the usual beneficiaries of Supreme Court jurisprudential largess - governmental defendants and corporations - did well.<br /><br />No surprises here.<br /><br />Two more whistleblowers got skinned in the name of Lueck, their equally hapless predecessor on the Court's public employment/governmental entity docket. Since the Court set new precedent in TxDOT v. Lueck for <a href="http://texas-opinions.blogspot.com/2009/07/state-and-txdot-v-lueck-tex-2009.html">jurisdictional dismissal of WBA claims on the pleadings</a>, these other Whistleblower appeals could be swiftly disposed of in brief per curiams. And so they were.<br /><br />Another public employment dispute - also resolved in favor of the governmental entity of course - concerned a municipal officer's disciplinary proceeding. Justice Hecht penned the opinion, and managed to explain with with less than 55 footnotes why the City was right in arguing that the hearing examiner had exceeded his authority when ordering reinstatement. No real surprise here either, leaving aside the footnote meter.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#000099;">DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF EXHAUSTION & WANT OF JURISDICTON </span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#000099;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#000099;">- not to mention - WANT OF COMPASSION</span></strong><br /><br />Lastly, there is a worker's comp appeal (aka judicial review suit). Those pesky malingeres! They can't even get their paperwork right and exhaust their administrative remedies. We need to send a message here: Case dismissed. Compassion is for the comp carriers that are tardy in processing and disputing claims. No wonder they have such a hard time keeping up and denying claims. There are so many of them. Plus, they have to deal with these pesky claimants all day long.)<br /><br />Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction!<br /><br />Of course.<br /><br />No jurisdiction. No need to entertain the merits of any claim, pain, or request for a judicial remedy.<br /><br />Hand me that plea. And we will be done.<br /><br /><em><span style="color:#000099;">The jurisdiction, the jurisdiction, that's the thing .... that won't ever trouble the conscience of the King.</span></em><br /><br /><br /><strong>LAST INSTALMENT OF TEX. SUP. CT. OPINIONS FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR:</strong><br /><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-City-of-Pasadena-TX-v-Smith-Tex-2009-by-Hecht-city-disciplinary-action-appeal-hearing-officer-authority-jurisdiction.html">City of Pasadena, TX v. Smith</a>, No. 06-0948 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2009)(<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Hecht-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Nathan-Hecht.html">Hecht</a>) (disciplinary appeal, authority of hearing examiner, police officer, UDJA and jurisdictional issues) CITY OF PASADENA, TEXAS v. RICHARD SMITH; from Harris County; 1st district (01-05-01157-CV, 263 SW3d 80, 09-14-06) The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court. Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Dynegy-Midstream-Services-LP-v-Versado-Gas-Processors-LLC-Tex-2009-by-Willett-gas-disappeared-contract-construction-delivery.html">Dynegy Midstream Services, LP v. Versado Gas Processors, LLC</a>, No. 07-0043 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2009)(<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Willett-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Don-R-Willett.html">Willett</a>) (<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-oil-and-gas-and-minerals.html">oil and gas law litigation</a>, gas lost in transit, construction of contract re: sale, delivery) DYNEGY MIDSTREAM SERVICES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND VERSADO GAS PROCESSORS, LLC v. APACHE CORPORATION; from Harris County; 14th district (14-05-00010-CV, 214 SW3d 554, 12-07-06) 2 petitions The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court. Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Texas-Department-of-Health-Human-Services-Tex-2009-per-curiam-WBA-appeal-decided-per-Lueck.html">TDHHS v. Okoli</a>, No. 07-0642 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2009)(per curiam)(<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-State-of-Texas-and-TxDOT-v-Lueck-Tex-2009-by-Green-WBA-Whistblower-Act-Claim-dismissed.html">WBA case decided per Lueck</a>) <a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Texas-Department-of-Health-Human-Services-Tex-2009-per-curiam-WBA-appeal-decided-per-Lueck.html">TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES v. OLIVER OKOLI</a>; from Harris County; 1st district (01-07-00103-CV, 263 SW3d 275, 06-28-07) Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands<br /><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Marks-v-St-Lukes-Episcopal-Hospital-Tex-2009-by-Medina-patient-injury-caused-by-defective-hospital-bed-what-type-of-PI-claim.html">Marks v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital</a>, No. 07-0783 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2009)(<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Medina-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-David-Medina.html">Medina</a>)<br />(<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Marks-v-St-Lukes-Episcopal-Hospital-Tex-2009-by-Medina-patient-injury-caused-by-defective-hospital-bed-what-type-of-PI-claim.html">injury caused to patient by defective hospital bed, what type of PI claim? medical health care liability or premises liability?</a>) IRVING W. MARKS v. ST. LUKE'S EPISCOPAL HOSPITAL; from Harris County; 1st district (01-04-00228-CV, 229 SW3d 396, 05-03-07) The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court. Justice Medina delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice O'Neill, Justice Brister, and Justice Green joined. Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a concurring opinion. Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion. Justice Wainwright delivered a dissenting opinion. Justice Johnson delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, and Justice Willett joined.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Intercontinental-Group-Partnership-v-KB-Home-Lone-Star-LP-by-Willett-prevailing-party-for-attorneys-fees.html">Intercontinental Group Partnership v. KB Home Lone Star LP</a>., No. 07-0815 (Aug. 28, 2009)(<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Willett-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Don-R-Willett.html">Willett</a>) (<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-attorneys-fees.html">prevailing party for attorney fees purposes</a>) INTERCONTINENTAL GROUP PARTNERSHIP v. KB HOME LONE STAR L.P.; from Hidalgo County; 13th district (13-06-00617-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 08-23-07)The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice Green, and Justice Johnson joined. [pdf]Justice Brister delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, and Justice Medina joined.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-TxDOT-v-Garcia-Tex-2009-per-curiam-WBA-violation-of-law-a-jurisdictional-question.html">TxDOT v. Garcia</a>, No. 07-1030 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2009)(per curiam) (<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-WBA.html">Whistleblower Act claim</a>, <a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-TxDOT-v-Garcia-Tex-2009-per-curiam-WBA-violation-of-law-a-jurisdictional-question.html">allegation of report of violation of law jurisdictional</a>) TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. SERGIO GARCIA; from Cameron County; 13th district (13-07-00004-CV, 243 SW3d 759, 11-01-07) Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court. Per Curiam Opinion<br /><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-State-Office-of-Risk-Management-v-Lawton-by-Jefferson-workers-comp-compensability-issue-deadline-to-contest.html">State Office of Risk Management v. Lawton</a>, No. 08-0363 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2009)(Jefferson) (<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-workers-comp.html">workers comp claim</a>; deadline for contesting compensability) STATE OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT v. MARY LAWTON; from Brazos County; 10th district (10-07-00072-CV, 256 SW3d 436, 04-16-08)The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court. View Electronic Briefs<br /><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-MBM-Financial-Corp-v-The-Woodlands-Operating-Co-Tex-2009-by-Brister-how-much-is-nominal-damages-attorneys-fees-recovery-based-on-successful-claim.html">MBM Financial Corporation v. The Woodlands Operating Co.</a>, No. 08-0390 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2009)(<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Brister-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice.html">Brister</a>)(<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-MBM-Financial-Corp-v-The-Woodlands-Operating-Co-Tex-2009-by-Brister-how-much-is-nominal-damages-attorneys-fees-recovery-based-on-successful-claim.html">what constitutes nominal damages?, recovery of damages as prerequisite for recovery of attorneys' fees</a>) MBM FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. THE WOODLANDS OPERATING COMPANY, L.P.; from Montgomery County; 9th district (09-07-00060-CV, 251 SW3d 174, 04-10-08)2 petitionsThe Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court. (Justice O'Neill not sitting)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-In-Re-Liberty-Mutual-Fire-Insurance-Co-Tex-2009-per-curiam-workers-comp-exhaustion-of-remedies.html">In Re Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co.</a>, No. 08-0742 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2009)(per curiam) (<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-workers-comp.html">worker's comp</a>, <a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies.html">exhaustion of administrative remedies</a>) IN RE LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; from Nueces County; 13th district (13-08-00129-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 08-07-08)Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus. Per Curiam Opinion<br /><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-In-Re-Greater-Houston-Orthopaedic-Specialists-Inc-per-curiam-nonsuit-counterclaim-effect-of-misnomer.html">In Re Greater Houston Orthopaedic Specialists, Inc.</a> No. 08-0820 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2009)(per curiam) (<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-misnomer.html">effect of misnomer</a>, <a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-nonsuit.html">nonsuit</a> and counterclaim) IN RE GREATER HOUSTON ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS, INC.; from Cameron County; 3th district (13-08-00366-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 09-11-08)stay order issued October 17, 2008, liftedPursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.Per Curiam Opinion<br /><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-In-Re-Weekley-Homes-LP-2009-08-28-by-ONeill-discovery-mandamus-order-re-deleted-emails-on-computer.html">In Re Weekley Homes, LP.</a> No. 08-0836 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2009)(<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-ONeill-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Harriet-O-Neill.html">O'Neill</a>)(<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-discovery-mandamus.html">discovery mandamus</a>, order to facilitate recovery of deleted emails from computer) IN RE WEEKLEY HOMES, L.P.; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-08-01249-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 09-24-08) The Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.Justice O'Neill delivered the opinion of the Court.WOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281586307952194922.post-18525470834839888832009-08-23T15:32:00.001-07:002009-08-25T17:14:43.171-07:00Justice Harriet O'Neill's Parting Shots<p><span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)"><strong>IN A DIFFERENT VOICE</strong></span></p><p><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)">Justice O'Neill's recent </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/advisories/Statement_Justice_ONeill_080609.htm"><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)">announcement that she will not seek re-election in 2010</span></a><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)"> adds something of a parting-shot quality to her vigorous dissent to the Court's disrespect for precedent and for trial courts' traditional discretion in deciding whether or not to grant a new trial in the interest of justice. </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-In-Re-Columbia-Medical-Center-of-Las-Colinas-Tex-2009-by-Johnson-trial-judge-ordered-by-mandamus-to-give-adequate-reason-for-grant-of-new-trial.html"><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)">In Re Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas</span></a><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)">, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=27214"><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)">06-0416</span></a><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)"> (Tex. Jul. 3, 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Johnson-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Phil-Johnson.html"><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)">Johnson</span></a><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)">) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2009-Mandamus-Decisions-with-Opinions.html"><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)">mandamus </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2009-Mandamus-Decisions-with-Opinions.html"><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)">granted</span></a><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)">) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-new-trial-after-jury-verdict-now-requires-specific-justification-by-the-judge.html"><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)">trial court judge ordered to state specific reason(s) for disregarding jury verdict and granting new trial; 'in the interest of justice' is no longer acceptable</span></a>)<span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)"><br /></span><br /><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)">This is also the case in the which the attorney for the wrongful-death plaintiffs filed a <a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/Tex_Recusal_Motion_in_In_Re_Columbia_brought_by_Ben_Martin_-_searchable_text_version.pdf">motion to recuse four of the nine justices for the empirically documented proclivity of the court to favor tort defendants</a>. The denial of the motion impugning the Supremes' [much-questioned] impartiality did not come as a great surprise. A blog post on Tex Parte - the Texas Lawyer Blog - summed it up succinctly: </span><a href="http://texaslawyer.typepad.com/texas_lawyer_blog/2007/09/we-dont-need-no.html"><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)">We don't need no stinkin' recusal</span></a><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)">. </span><br /><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)"><br /></span><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)"><span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)"><strong>QUITTING WITH ADVANCE NOTICE TO LET THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS RUN ITS COURSE<br /></strong></span><br />Upon her announcement that she will step down, The Great Dissenter and only female member of the current Texas Supreme Court should be commended for her courage to stand up, speak her mind, and try to rein in (albeit unsuccessfully) a majority of her colleagues' power grab via mandamus-exhancement, and concomitant micro-management of the trial judges below.<br /><br />Ironically the majority tries to justify its precedent-jettisoning decision with reference to the public's confidence in the judiciary. </span><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)">O'Neill's well-argued dissent deserves far greater public attention than it has so far received. And so does the empirical evidence of supreme pro-defendant bias cited to in the doomed <a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/files/Tex_Recusal_Motion_in_In_Re_Columbia_brought_by_Ben_Martin_-_searchable_text_version.pdf">motion to recuse</a> in the case, which is at the core of the informed public's lack of confidence in the Court.<br /><br />Hopefully Justice O'Neill's bold jurisprudence in dissent will add to the public debate over the legal and political role of the Texas Supreme Court and the wisdom of the Chief's idea to end the current judicial selection system and replace it with one that puts constraints on the role of the voters.</span><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)"> If O'Neill serves out her term, her seat will be filled through the competitive electoral process in an <a href="http://www.texasappellatelawblog.com/2009/08/articles/news-politics/justice-harriet-oneills-seat-open-for-2010/">open-seat race</a>. Several would-be contenders are already entering the fray, or reported to be considering a run. </span><br /><br /><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)">Both the Republican primary voters, and the general electorate, will thus get a chance to consider a choice of candidates and make a decision democratically, rather than a successor being hand-picked by the Gov. and bestowed with incumbency and fund-raising advantage just in time for election campaign season.<br /><br /></span><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)"><strong><span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">TEXT O'NEILL'S DISSENT</span><span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">ING OPINION IN</span> </strong><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/060416d.htm"><strong>In Re Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas, Subsidiary L.P., et al. (Tex. 2009)</strong></a><strong> <span style="COLOR: rgb(255,0,0)">follows:</span></strong> </span><br /><br />Justice O’Neill, joined by Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Medina, and Justice Green, dissenting.<br /><br />I agree that trial courts should not set aside jury verdicts without valid reasons. And I might agree that a change in the procedural rules to require trial judges to state good cause more particularly than “in the interests of justice and fairness” would be well advised, though the Legislature has only seen fit to impose such a requirement in criminal cases.</p><p><br />But declaring such a rule by judicial fiat on interlocutory review, and issuing mandamus relief against the trial court for not following it, turns our mandamus jurisprudence on its head. The Court recites that “exceptional circumstances” justify mandamus relief when the trial court shows “such disregard for guiding principles of law that the harm . . . is irreparable.” ___ S.W.3d ___, ___ (internal quotations omitted). Yet this case presents neither exceptional circumstances nor a departure from controlling law, as the trial court followed one of our most well-established legal principles.<br /><br />We have long held, unequivocally, that a trial court may grant a new trial “in the interests of justice and fairness,”<a name="_ftnref1"></a><a title="" href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/060416d.htm#_ftn1">1</a> and trial and appellate courts have taken us at our word.<a name="_ftnref2"></a><a title="" href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/060416d.htm#_ftn2">2</a> <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/060416d.htm">The Court simply changes the rule and jettisons the law upon which the trial court relied. After today, I see no principled basis for denying mandamus review of any potentially dispositive but unexplained interlocutory ruling</a>.<br /><br />The Court’s premise is simple enough and, on first glance, compelling: public confidence in the judicial system will be enhanced if trial courts explain the reasons for their rulings. This premise, though, would surely apply with equal force to any number of interlocutory rulings, such as why the court impaneled jurors who were challenged for cause, granted or denied a motion for summary judgment, allowed or disallowed particular discovery, exercised its gatekeeping function as it did with regard to a key expert witness, or admitted or excluded potentially dispositive evidence. A trial court’s ruling on matters like these, if wrong, could ultimately lead to reversal on appeal and necessitate the expense and delay of a new trial. Yet we have never justified interlocutory review of such decisions on the trial court’s failure to expound its reasoning.<br /><br />Unlike many other jurisdictions, Texas has no statutory or procedural rule that requires a trial court to further explain its ruling on a new trial motion or that permits interlocutory review of that decision, presumably because the benefits of a relatively prompt retrial if the judge perceives unfairness in the proceedings outweigh the detriments of prolonging final judgment pending interlocutory appellate review. After all, this case has been on review for over four and one half years since the new trial was granted.<br /><br />The Court purports to justify its misadventure on the principle that trial courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the jury. While undoubtedly true, it is equally true that an appellate court may not substitute its discretion for that of the trial court, which is charged with ensuring the fairness of the proceedings and safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process.<br /><br />Because trial courts are in a unique position to observe the proceedings and participants firsthand, we have afforded them broad discretion in assessing whether “in the interests of justice and fairness” a new trial is warranted. If abuse of the privilege that such broad discretion affords is a concern, then Rule 320 should be amended to mirror the federal requirement that a court “specify the reasons in its order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(d). Until then, no jurisprudential imperative compels us to overturn more than a century of clear precedent and erode the broad discretion we have traditionally afforded trial courts in granting new trials when they perceive good cause to do so. Because the Court ventures far beyond the boundaries of our mandamus jurisprudence, I respectfully dissent.<br /><br /><strong>I. Background<br /></strong><br />Donald Creech, Jr. was admitted to Columbia Medical Center for difficulties with kidney stones. While at the hospital, he received the pain medication Dilaudid, a narcotic, intravenously. When he increasingly complained of severe pain, the licensed vocational nurse (LVN) attending to Donald increased the amount and frequency of his doses. Several hours after his largest dose, Donald died. Donald’s widow, Wendy Creech, brought this suit, alleging that the hospital staff violated the standard of care in administering such a large amount of Dilaudid to Donald when he suffered from sleep apnea. She alleges that the medication, a respiratory depressant, interacted with Donald’s sleep apnea to cause his death by asphyxiation.<br /><br />After a four-week trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants. Wendy moved for a new trial, arguing that the evidence conclusively proved the defendants’ negligence, the verdict was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, the verdict was manifestly unjust and conflicted with evidence that established Columbia’s negligence as a matter of law, and a new trial was warranted in the interests of justice and fairness. The motion contained twenty-eight evidentiary points, including a challenge to the reliability of Columbia’s expert testimony. The trial court, “in the interests of justice and fairness,” granted the motion as to the LVN, her supervising registered nurse, and Columbia in its capacity as their employer (collectively, “Columbia”), presumably on the grounds urged in the new trial motion. The court entered judgment in favor of all other defendants<a name="_ftnref3"></a><a title="" href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/060416d.htm#_ftn3">3</a> in accordance with the verdict. Relying on our precedent, the court of appeals held that the trial court’s explanation for granting the new trial was sufficient. ___ S.W.3d ___. Under our well-established jurisprudence, it clearly was.<br /><br /><strong>II. Standard of Review</strong><br /><br />Trial courts have always been afforded broad discretion in the granting of new trials, and may exercise such discretion “in the interests of justice and fairness” without stating any other reason. See Champion Int’l Corp., 762 S.W.2d at 899; Johnson, 700 S.W.2d at 918. Over a century ago, this Court emphasized the point:<br /><br />In ordinary cases the judge has a discretion to grant a new trial whenever, in his opinion, wrong and injustice have been done by the verdict; and it is upon this ground that courts have refused to interfere to revise the granting of new trials.<br /><br />Goss, 17 Tex. at 115. In this case, the trial court did precisely what we have long said it could. Yet the Court concludes the trial court abused its discretion in not stating a more specific reason for its ruling, creating new law on mandamus and overturning a long line of precedent in the process.<br /><br />The Court points to a number of jurisdictions that require a trial court to articulate the reason when granting a new trial sua sponte. In this case, though, the trial court did not rule sua sponte but granted the plaintiff’s motion for new trial, presumably for the reasons that the plaintiff explained. Although one of the plaintiff’s new trial grounds cited “the interests of justice and fairness,” another challenged the verdict based on “the great weight and preponderance of the evidence,” a ground we have no jurisdiction to review. We do not know whether the trial court’s “in the interests of justice and fairness” ruling was based on perceived unfairness in the proceedings, on factual insufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict, or on both. For this reason alone, we should deny mandamus relief. But even if the trial court had acted sua sponte, the rule in nearly all jurisdictions that require an explanation is codified in a statute or procedural rule.<a name="_ftnref4"></a><a title="" href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/060416d.htm#_ftn4">4</a> In none of the remaining jurisdictions was the rule promulgated on mandamus or its equivalent, and for good reason.<br /><br />First, to warrant mandamus relief the trial court must have committed a “clear abuse of discretion,” which we have defined to include failure to apply the law correctly. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992). Because the trial court here did exactly what we have clearly said it could, the trial court can hardly be said to have abused that discretion. Second, our Legislature is well aware that trial courts may grant new trials “in the interests of justice and fairness” and has not seen fit to change the law. The Legislature did decide to allow interlocutory review of new trial orders in criminal proceedings, but declined to extend such review to the civil arena. See Tex. Code. Crim. Proc. art. 44.01(a)(3). In civil cases, our procedural rules expressly permit a trial court to grant a new trial on its own motion for any good cause. Tex. R. Civ. P. 320. Presuming, as the Court does, that a change in procedure is warranted, it would be far more appropriate to effect that change by amending the rules rather than implementing new law on mandamus.<br /><br />Even if mandamus were an appropriate vehicle to overturn precedent, there is no cause to do so here. There is a “strong presumption” against overruling our precedent. Gutierrez v. Collins, 583 S.W.2d 312, 317 (Tex. 1979). Absent compelling reasons, courts should avoid overturning established law because “the legitimacy of the judiciary rests in large part upon a stable and predictable decisionmaking process;” without adherence to precedent, no question of law would ever be considered resolved. Weiner v. Wasson, 900 S.W.2d 316, 320 (Tex. 1995). Compelling reasons to overturn precedent may exist in limited circumstances, such as when the preceding decision itself was incorrect or unconstitutional, there is conflicting precedent, the decision has been undercut by the passage of time, the precedent created inconsistency and confusion, or the decision consistently creates unjust results. See Hammock v. State, 46 S.W.3d 889, 892–93 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); see also Bowman Biscuit Co. v. Hines, 251 S.W.2d 153, 155 (Tex. 1952) (Garwood, J., dissenting). None of these circumstances are presented here. The well-established principle that a trial court does not abuse its discretion by ordering a new trial “in the interests of justice and fairness” is clear, we have followed it as recently as 2000, see In re Bayerische Motoren Werke, AG, 8 S.W.3d 326; In re Volkswagen, 22 S.W.3d 462, and there is no conflicting precedent over the course of the 150 years it has been in place. Our precedent is not unconstitutional, as I will later explain, nor was it incorrect in the first instance.<br /></p><p>In sum, none of the factors we have considered in those rare instances when we have found it necessary to overrule precedent exist in this case.<br /><br />Although the Court purports to rely on good policy in support of its new rule, there are also good reasons why a trial court’s failure to provide a more specific explanation does not warrant extraordinary relief. For example, it would likely be fundamentally unjust to uphold a verdict when jurors have been inattentive or their perceptions impaired, but our procedural and evidentiary rules only contemplate the development of an evidentiary record when outside influence has been asserted. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 327; Tex. R. Evid. 606(b). In Tanner v. United States, the jury was allegedly under the influence of alcohol and drugs, including marijuana and cocaine, for much of the trial. 483 U.S. 107, 115–16 (1987). That evidence was inadmissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 606(b), which is almost identical to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 606(b). Id. at 125. Under the Court’s decision today, it is not clear how extended the trial court’s explanation for a new trial in similar circumstances would have to be, nor is it clear what a reviewing court should do with that information. For the Court’s rule to have meaning, the trial judge would likely need to identify which jurors were impaired, how much so, and when, all without the ability to develop an evidentiary record. The party challenging the new trial order would surely counter that the jury was not impaired, or at least not so impaired as to taint the verdict. It is unclear how an appellate court could effectively review such an order, or whether such a reason, though probably “good cause” to order a new trial under Rule 320, would be sufficient to survive mandamus review.<br /><br />The procedural history of this case aptly demonstrates another reason why extraordinary relief is not warranted for the trial court’s failure to provide a more specific explanation. During the pendency of this Court’s review, the trial judge who ordered a new trial, the Honorable Merrill Hartman, left office and a new judge succeeded him. We abated the original proceeding to allow the successor judge to reconsider Judge Hartman’s ruling. See Tex. R. App. P. 7.2(b). The new judge did so, and reaffirmed Judge Hartman’s order. The Court today sends the case back to the successor judge to specify the reasons why a new trial was granted. To the extent the successor judge is able to make an independent assessment based on the record, this may be feasible. But if Judge Hartman based his decision in whole or in part on unfairness that he perceived during the proceedings, which until today he was not required to articulate on the record, then the successor judge is faced with an impossible task. In such a circumstance, changing the rules in midstream produces a substantial injustice. And if the successor judge reviews the transcript of the proceedings and reaffirms the new trial order because the jury’s verdict was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, the Court today opens the door to interlocutory evidentiary review of that decision which heretofore has only been afforded on appeal from a final judgment. See Champion Int’l Corp., 762 S.W.2d at 899; Johnson v. Court of Civil Appeals for the Seventh Supreme Judicial Dist., 350 S.W.2d 330, 331 (Tex. 1961).<br /><br />The Court purports to preserve the discretion traditionally afforded trial courts in issuing new trial orders, but the practical effect of its decision will be more frequent appellate intervention and delay. See Johnson, 700 S.W.2d at 918; see also Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 36 (1980). Moreover, without the vetting that the Court’s rule-making process would afford, the parameters for reviewing the trial court’s explanation are murky at best. For example, the rules contemplate a trial court’s discretion to grant a new trial for “good cause” based on “insufficiency or weight of the evidence.” See Tex. R. Civ. P. 320, 326. Will a judge’s statement that a new trial is ordered “because of insufficiency or weight of the evidence” satisfy the court’s requirement? Tex. R. Civ. P. 326. Or must the trial judge, like an appellate court, review the entire record and expend its resources “detail[ing] the evidence relevant to the issue in consideration and clearly stat[ing] why the jury’s finding is factually insufficient or is so against the great weight and preponderance as to be manifestly unjust; why it shocks the conscience; or clearly demonstrates bias?” Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986). If upon reflection the judge believes that a particular witness should not have been allowed to testify, or a piece of evidence should not have come in, or a requested instruction should have been included in the charge, are those reasons subject to interlocutory review before a new trial may proceed? If the appellate court considers an articulated reason invalid, will the case go back down for the judge to consider alternative grounds that were urged in support of the new trial motion? And if a new trial is granted based upon the judge’s personal observations, to what extent may those observations be tested? Is it sufficient for the judge to explain that the jury was generally inattentive, or must the judge identify the particular jurors and allow the making of a record for purposes of challenging the judge’s perception?<br /><br />Such micromanagement of the trial process diminishes the important role trial courts play in making decisions with the benefit of observing firsthand the demeanor of the witnesses, parties, attorneys, and jurors, and any other aspect of the trial that may not be reflected on a cold record. See Murff v. Pass, 249 S.W.3d 407, 411 (Tex. 2008) (citing Hyundai Motor Co. v. Vasquez, 189 S.W.3d 743, 753 (Tex. 2006)). The discretion afforded trial courts is particularly broad in the area of jury management. For example, we have frequently stated that trial courts have “wide latitude” in conducting voir dire proceedings and determining whether a juror is impartial. Id. We have noted that an interpretation of juror behavior “turns on the courtroom context, and perhaps the looks on their faces.” Hyundai, 189 S.W.3d at 755. Given the trial court’s observational advantage, it is in a better position than a reviewing court to discern whether the parties received the fair trial that our laws guarantee, which is why we have long said “[a]n appellate court may not substitute its discretion for that of the trial court.” Johnson, 700 S.W.2d at 918.<br /><br />Although acknowledging that orders granting new trials are rare, Columbia warns that without careful interlocutory scrutiny judges will be free to substitute their opinions for those of the jury. Even accepting the premise that some stray trial courts may intentionally abuse their discretion in this regard, I doubt that requiring wayward courts to explain their decisions will bring them back into the fold; a judge intent on granting a new trial without good cause can surely construct a plausible reason capable of withstanding appellate scrutiny. While I agree that trial courts should, when feasible, explain to the parties why a new trial is being granted, imposing such a requirement threatens to impede the conscientious trial judge’s ability to correct errors or unfairness that may have occurred in the proceedings, and ultimately result in fruitless expense and delay.<br /><br /><strong>III. Columbia’s Constitutional Challenge<br /></strong><br />Columbia contends our precedents allowing trial courts to grant new trials “in the interests of justice and fairness,” without further explanation, violate federal and state constitutional guarantees of due process and the state constitutional guarantee of trial by jury. Specifically, Columbia claims the lack of meaningful appellate review of new trial orders violates substantive and procedural federal constitutional rights to due process and state constitutional rights to due course of law.<a name="_ftnref5"></a><a title="" href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/060416d.htm#_ftn5">5</a> See U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Tex. Const. art. I, § 19. According to Columbia, its substantive due-process rights are violated because it is deprived of its property, the jury verdict, in an arbitrary and capricious manner, see Regents of the Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214, 215, 225 (1985), and its procedural due-process rights are violated because it did not have the opportunity to contest the new trial order at a hearing on appeal, see Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976). These alleged constitutional violations, Columbia argues, would be cured by effective appellate review of new trial orders.<br /><br />Neither type of due-process right that Columbia describes is implicated unless a party is deprived of a protected property or liberty interest. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 59 (1999); Mathews, 424 U.S. at 332. Columbia claims deprivation of a property interest, which is only constitutionally protected if the right is independently guaranteed by state or federal law. Leis v. Flynt, 439 U.S. 438, 441–42 (1979). Columbia does not argue that any federal statute or the common law creates a property right in a particular jury verdict, and we have held that “[n]o party to a civil action has a constitutional right of appeal from an order of the trial court granting a new trial.” Plummer v. Van Arsdell, 299 S.W. 869, 870 (Tex. 1927). Under Texas law, although there is a property interest in a legal claim or contractual right, Tex. Prop. Code § 111.004(12), there is no property interest in a particular non-final judgment, Burroughs v. Leslie, 620 S.W.2d 643, 644 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that no property rights are implicated when a trial court makes a decision that is discretionary under state law, even if the trial court provides no reasoning for its decision. Leis, 439 U.S. at 442–44. Because Columbia was not deprived of any protected property interest when the trial court issued its new trial order, Columbia’s due-process and due-course-of-law rights are not implicated.<br /><br />Columbia further asserts that allowing trial courts to issue new trial orders without appellate review deprives it of its state constitutional right to trial by jury. See Tex. Const. art. I, § 15, art. V, § 10. I agree that the Texas Constitution guarantees Columbia a right to a trial by jury in this health care liability case. But new trial orders, even if shielded from interlocutory review, do not infringe on that right. We upheld the constitutionality of such orders in Plummer, and I see no reason to revisit the question here. 299 S.W. at 870. Columbia has had a trial by jury and will have another; it does not have a constitutional right to a particular jury or a particular jury verdict. Indeed, the discretion afforded a trial court in granting new trials does not deprive parties of the right to a fair trial by jury; to the contrary, it helps to guarantee that right when circumstances of the first trial were unjust or unfair to one of the parties. See Hon. Scott Brister, The Decline in Jury Trials: What Would Wal-Mart Do?, 47 S. Tex. L. Rev. 191, 221 (2005) (“If the first jury was correct, then a second can confirm it.”). Given that the merits of Creech’s claims and Columbia’s defenses will ultimately be decided by a jury, Columbia has not been deprived of its right to a trial by jury.<br /><br /><strong>IV. Conclusion</strong><br /><br /><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/060416d.htm">This case does not present exceptional circumstances to warrant overturning clear and longstanding precedent on mandamus review</a>. Because the Court concludes otherwise, I respectfully dissent.<br />___________________________________<br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-ONeill-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Harriet-O-Neill.html">Harriet O’Neill</a><br />Justice<br /><br />OPINION DELIVERED: July 3, 2009<br /><br />[footnotes omitted] </p><p><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/060416d.pdf">See full text of O'Neill's dissenting opinion in pdf</a> <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/060416d.htm">html version</a> on the Supreme Court's web site. </p><p><span style="font-size:78%;">RELATED SEARCH TERMS: TEXAS SUPREME COURT PRO-DEFENDANT PRO-BUSINESS ANTI-CONSUMER AND PERSONAL INJURY TORT-PLAINTIFF BIAS, DECISIONMAKING PATTERNS, WHO, WHICH CLASS OF LITIGANTS PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS DOES THE TEX. SUPREME COURT FAVOR? </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-recusal"><span style="font-size:78%;">MOTION TO RECUSE RECUSAL CASES AND CASELAW</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span></a></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;"></span></p>WOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281586307952194922.post-79379147998875252942009-08-21T14:32:00.000-07:002009-08-23T15:25:38.002-07:00Deficient Proof of (DTPA) Damages in Post-Answer Default Judgment Hearing Requires Remand, Texas Supreme Court Says<span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)"><br /><strong>Evidence of damages caused by defective roof work was defective enough to require reversal of default judgment in DTPA suit against contractor<br /></strong><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Bennett-v-McDaniel-per-curiam-default-judgment-reversed-insufficient-proof-of-damages.html"><strong>Bennett v. McDaniel</strong></a><strong> (</strong><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2009-Supreme-Court-Decisions.html"><strong>Tex. 2009</strong></a><strong>)</strong></span><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153);font-size:100%;" ><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)">In the wake of <a href="http://texas-opinions.blogspot.com/2009/07/dolgencorp-of-texas-inc-v-lerma-tex.html">another recent reversal of a post-answer default judgment</a>, the defendant-friendly Texas Supreme Court agrees with the court of appeals that proof of damages in a consumer complaint against a roofing contractor was insufficient, thus requiring reversal, but disagrees that the plaintiffs should take nothing via rendition of judgment in the contractor's favor on appeal.</span><br /><br /><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)">Instead, the High Court requires remand to the trial court, thus affording both the defendant and the plaintiffs a second chance to litigate their dispute on the merits of the facts. </span><br /><br /><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)">Supreme moderation at its best.</span><br /><br /><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)">A nagging question: How should the empirically-inclined court watchers (be they social scientific bean counters or plaintiff's bar partisans looking for even more stats to validate the court's bias against common folk) code this case in terms of outcome? 50% for the Defense or 50% for the Offense? Half-win for biz; Half-loss for consumers? Not to mention that the Defendant is not of the corporate kind in this case and qualifies as average Joe too, doing business in his own name or dba (his status is not entirely clear since he also has or had an inc. appended to his name). </span><br /><br /><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)">The Court's per curiam opinion - the sole jurisprudential offering over the course of several weeks - is succinct enough to merit posting </span></span><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">in toto</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153)">.<br /><br />Here we go:</span><br /></span><span class="text" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"><br />══════════════════════════════════════════<br /></span><b><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 22px"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Bennett-v-McDaniel-per-curiam-default-judgment-reversed-insufficient-proof-of-damages.html">Bennett v. McDaniel</a> (</span></b><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2009-Supreme-Court-Decisions.html"><b><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 22px">Tex. 2009</span></b></a><b><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 22px">)(</span></b><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2009-Per-Curiam-Opinions-Tex-Sup-Ct.html"><b><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 22px">per curiam</span></b></a><b><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 22px">)</span></b><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"><br />══════════════════════════════════════════<span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br />PER CURIAM<br /><br />In this restricted appeal of a post-answer default judgment, the court of appeals held that the plaintiffs presented legally insufficient evidence of damages and rendered a take-nothing judgment. ___ S.W.3d at ___. We agree that the damages evidence was legally insufficient, but the court of appeals’ disposition was improper under our recent opinion in </span></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Dolgencorp-of-Texas-Inc-v-Lerma-Tex-2009-motion-for-new-trial-after-post-answer-default-judgment.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:85%;" >Dolgencorp v. Lerma</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ S.W.3d at ___. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and remand to the trial court. </span></span><br /><span class="text"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Benny and Mary Bennett sued Richard McDaniel alleging that McDaniel had damaged the roof of their home, which the Bennetts had hired him to repair. McDaniel filed an answer denying their allegations, but did not appear when the case was called for trial. At trial, Mary Bennett testified that she received an estimate to repair the roof in the amount of “approximately 72 or $7300.00,” and that she incurred “actual damages of $7500.00 to repair this roof.” The estimate, however, does not appear in the record. The trial court rendered a default judgment in favor of the Bennetts for $7,500 in actual damages, $10,000 in punitive damages, and $1,500 in attorney’s fees.<br /><br />It is unclear whether the estimate that Mary Bennett referred to was submitted to the trial court and omitted from the appellate record, or whether it was not submitted at all. In either case, we disagree with the court of appeals’ statement that “an estimate without the testimony of the person who created the estimate or other expert testimony is no evidence of the necessity of the repair or the reasonableness of the cost of the repair.” ___S.W.3d___. Such evidence might ordinarily be properly excluded as hearsay, but no hearsay objection was lodged in this case. The record indicates, however, that Mary Bennett merely stated an estimated price and did not testify that the estimate was reasonable. For this reason, we agree with the court of appeals that the Bennetts did not present legally sufficient evidence of damages.<br /><br />While this petition was pending, we held in Dolgencorp, ___S.W.3d ___, that when the evidence is legally insufficient to support a post-answer default judgment the proper disposition is to remand for a new trial. Accordingly, we grant the Bennetts’ petition for review and, without hearing oral argument, Tex. R. App. P. 59.1, reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and remand this case to the trial court for a new trial.<br /><br />OPINION DELIVERED: </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/082109.asp"><span style="font-size:85%;">August 21, 2009 </span></a><br /></span></span><span class="text"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Bennett-v-McDaniel-per-curiam-default-judgment-reversed-insufficient-proof-of-damages.html">BENNY BENNETT AND WIFE, MARY BENNETT v. RICHARD MCDANIEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A RICHARD MCDANIEL, INC., D/B/A B.R. ROOFING, A/K/A B&R ROOFING</a>; from Wheeler County; 7th district (</span></span><a href="http://www.7thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/pdfOpinion.asp?OpinionID=12550"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:85%;" >07-06-00250-CV</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:85%;" >, ___ SW3d ___, 04-30-08)</span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"><span style="font-size:85%;"> (<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Bennett-v-McDaniel-per-curiam-default-judgment-reversed-insufficient-proof-of-damages.html">post-answer default judgment, testimony on damages insufficient to support the judgment; default judgment reversed</a>)<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals’ judgment and remands the case to the trial court.</span></span></span><br /><span class="text"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2009-Per-Curiam-Opinions-Tex-Sup-Ct.html"><span style="font-size:85%;">Per Curiam Opinion</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />Links to </span></span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080618.htm"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:85%;" >available online e-briefs for this case</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px;font-size:85%;" > (PDF) </span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"></span></span><br /><span class="text"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"><br /><br /></span></span><span class="text"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"></span></span>WOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281586307952194922.post-27089022320019030292009-07-26T11:39:00.000-07:002009-08-21T14:32:15.916-07:00WHISTLEBLOWERS BEWARE: State of Texas and TxDOT v. Lueck (Tex 2009)<span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />Three ways to skin the whistleblower: 1. summary judgment; 2. special exceptions, and now, for good measure, culling tool no. 3: DISMISSAL ON THE PLEADINGS </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 102); font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" ><span>OPEN SEASON ON WHISTLE BLOWERS </span> </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-weight: bold;">Regulatory Noncompliance Not Illegal, Supreme Court says (at least not when it comes to defeating whistleblower suits brought by terminated public employees) </span> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">L<span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">awsuits by public employees in employment-related disputes, such as wrongful termination or discrimination, are usually responded to with motions for summary judgment or with special exceptions if the pleadings are arguably insufficient or otherwise defective. In its recent decision in </span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">State of Texas v. Lueck</span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">, the Texas Supreme Court approved a third method: </span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">Dismissal on the pleadings</span><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">. Adding to its nearly spotless record of decisions favorable to governmental defendants, the Court gave its seal of approval to dismissal on the pleadings in a wrongful discharge suit brought under the Texas Whistleblower statute by an employee fired by TxDOT. The Act provides a statutory cause of action for public employees retaliated against for reporting illegal activity at work. Finding lack of jurisdiction -- one of the Court's favorite disposal doctrines -- the Court dismisses the whistleblower's suit outright without remand to the lower court. No opportunity to replead necessary.</span><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">It would be futile anyway. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">For good measure, and although not necessary to kill the lawsuit at hand, the Court held that two necessary elements were not satisfied by the plaintiff's pleadings in this case, and thus warranted jurisdictional dismissal: (1) the recipient of the plaintiff's report of allegedly illegal activity was not a proper law enforcement authority, and (2) the complaint was not really about illegal acts, but merely “regulatory noncompliance,” as if administrative law weren't really law. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">Two birds killed with one opinion. Two defenses to whistleblower claims beefed up and stamped with the court's seal of approval, and a new method to swiftly dispatch whistleblower suits without delving into evidence. Three new precedents handed to the defense bar for the price of one (appeal).<br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">The basic thrust of the High Court's whistleblower jurisprudence matches the Court's commitment to quash tort claims against public entity defendants under the Texas Tort Claims Act: Such suits should not be brought in the first place, much less should the plaintiffs claims be vindicated. Plaintiffs claiming whistleblower protection, after all, create inconvenience to government officials and seek to impose liability on governmental defendants, a favored category of litigants at the High Court.<br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">Such suits should be dismissed if at all possible. The earlier the better. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">Indeed, the Supreme Court is seeing to it.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">This latest installment in the Court's strings of pro-government and anti-employee rulings not only narrows the scope of the legislated immunity waiver effected by the Whistleblower Act, but also approves the summary disposition of whistleblower claims without even the need for a summary judgment motion to test the strength of the evidence.<br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">Under the newly fashioned precedent, a plea to the jurisdiction will do. And lest the Plaintiff amend the pleadings to meet the Court's tightened standards of what constitutes a qualifying claim entailing protection against and a remedy for adverse employment actions, the Court also blesses denial of any opportunity to replead. The claim could not succeed anyhow, the Court opines. The Court no doubt is right. A favorable verdict and judgment for a whistleblower would surely not withstand Supreme Court review, whatever the rationale that might be offered to effect reversal.<br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"> But better still if whistleblowers' rants of retaliation do not go to a potentially sympathetic jury in the first instance. Safer to quash a whistleblower suit at its inception, and to deter others brazen enough to invoke the Act. The latest opinion promises to accomplish as much. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-weight: bold;">WOULD-BE WHISTLEBLOWERS BEWARE!</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">The Lueck opinion fits in neatly with the Texas Supreme Court's immunity jurisprudence. Immunity theories are indeed an awesome weapon in the arsenal of the defense. No wonder the Court is so fond of them. If immunity is established, the evidence does not matter. The merits become irrelevant. Pesky plaintiffs can be thrown out of the courthouse without much ado, not to mention the inconvenience of a trial to determine whether the allegations in the pleadings are supported by the facts. Judicial resources can thus be preserved. This has been a principal concern of the Court, an interest the Court has shown a deep commitment to vindicate. Time and again. At the expense of the plaintiff's constitutionally guaranteed right to access to the courts. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 153);"><span style="font-weight: normal; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">The court's opinion was authored by </span><a style="font-weight: normal; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Green-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Paul-Green.html">Justice Paul Green</a><span style="font-weight: normal; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">. Not a single member of the Court dissented. On an earlier occasion, it was the Chief himself who took the lead in weakening whistleblower protections. Jefferson authored the opinion in which the Court gave the nod of approval for petty retaliation by government managers in holding that the punishment complained of in that case fell short of discharge or demotion and did not rise to the level of an actionable adverse employment action under the Whistleblower Act. </span><a style="font-weight: normal; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);" href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/Tex-2007-Montgomery-County-v-_Park-by-Jefferson-WBA-adverse-action.mht">Montgomery County v. Park, 246 S.46 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. 2007)</a><span style="font-weight: normal; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">. In that case, the Chief set the tone. Lueck marks a further step to erode the Whistleblower Act, and the notion that it affords a viable remedy, and thus undermines its purpose. </span><br /></p><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(51, 51, 153);"></span> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: bold;">EXCERPTS FROM THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT'S ANTI-WHISTLEBLOWER OPINION IN STATE V. LUECK (TEX. 2009):</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Under the Texas Whistleblower Act, sovereign immunity is waived when a public employee alleges a violation of Chapter 554 of the Government Code. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 554.0035. A violation under Chapter 554 occurs when a governmental entity retaliates against a public employee for making a good-faith report of a violation of law to an appropriate law enforcement authority. Id. § 554.002(a). George Lueck was fired from the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) after he sent an e-mail to the director of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division, reporting what he believed to be violations of state and federal law. Lueck then sued the State of Texas and TxDOT under the Whistleblower Act, alleging that he “was fired because of his good faith reports </span><span style="font-size:85%;">of TxDOT’s violation of state and federal law.” </span> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">We hold that, because Lueck’s e-mail report only warned of regulatory non-compliance, not a violation of law, and because an agency supervisor is not an appropriate law enforcement authority to whom a report should be made, Lueck’s allegation affirmatively negates the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over the cause. The State’s sovereign immunity is not waived, and thus, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">* * *</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">TxDOT points to uncontroverted allegations within Lueck’s pleadings, claiming that they affirmatively negate jurisdiction because the e-mail sent to Randall did not report a violation of law to an appropriate law enforcement authority. As for the report element, Lueck’s pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of a reported violation. Lueck’s fifth amended petition states that Lueck “believed and reported in good faith that if the Department did not pursue an immediate and positive resolution to Cooper’s October 29, demand[,] the Department would violate federal and state law by failing to remedy non-compliance with the federal and state reporting requirements.” This allegation merely recites Lueck’s prediction of possible regulatory noncompliance. Such a regulatory non-compliance of this kind does not equate to a violation of law under which a law enforcement authority regulates or enforces within the meaning of the Whistleblower Act. See TEX. GOV’T. CODE § 554.002(b). Further, Lueck attached the e-mail report to his pleadings, and the only discernable violation in the report itself states that TxDOT’s current system for reporting traffic data “is not capable of handling this data and will, therefore, never be in compliance.” This references the violation reported in the 1995 Federal Highway Administration report, which is only intended to call TxDOT’s attention to a previous, publicly-known instance of regulatory non-compliance. At most, this reference to a previous violation of a federal standard expresses disagreement with remedial measures taken by TxDOT after it was already knowingly out of compliance. An internal policy recommendation of this kind is not a report of a violation of law that the Whistleblower Act was designed to protect. Even if this e-mail did report a violation of law, Lueck’s supervisor, Mr. Randall, is not an appropriate law enforcement authority to whom such a report should be made.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">* * *</span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">[A]s a matter of law, Lueck’s pleadings affirmatively demonstrate that he did not allege a violation under the Whistleblower Act.3 For these reasons, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and dismiss the cause for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.</span></p><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><span class="text"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">CASE STYLE AND DETAILS & LINKS:</span> </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-State-of-Texas-and-TxDOT-v-Lueck-Tex-2009-by-Green-WBA-Whistblower-Act-Claim-dismissed.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">State of Texas and TxDoT v. Lueck</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" >, No. </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=27829"><span style="line-height: 17px;">06-1034</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" > (Tex. Jun. 26, 2009)(</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Green-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Paul-Green.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Green</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" >)(</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-WBA.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">W</span></a><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-WBA.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">histleblower </span></a><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-WBA.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">A</span></a><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-WBA.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">ct</span></a><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-WBA.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;"> claim</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" > dismissed)(allegation of regulatory noncompliance insufficient, report not to proper law-enforcement agency)<br />THE STATE OF TEXAS AND THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. GEORGE LUECK;<br />from Travis County; 3rd district (</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=11569"><span style="line-height: 17px;">03-05-00510-CV</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" >, </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLopinion.asp?OpinionID=15121"><span style="line-height: 17px;">212 SW3d 630</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" >, 08-16-06) motion to dismiss denied<br />The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and dismisses the case for lack of jurisdiction.<br />Justice </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jun/061034.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Green delivered the opinion of the Court</span></a></span><span style="line-height: 17px;font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" >. [pdf 16 pgs.]<br />View </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20061034.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Electronic Briefs in State of Texas and TxDoT v. Lueck</span></a><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20061034.htm"><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (Tex 2009)</span></a><br /><br /></span></span>WOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281586307952194922.post-692338117674022972009-07-14T19:18:00.000-07:002009-08-23T15:00:32.424-07:00JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL DID NOT BAR PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Ferguson-v-Building-Materials-Corp-of-America-Tex-2009-applicability-of-judicial-estoppel-doctrine.html"><strong>Ferguson v. Building Materials Corp. of America (Tex. 2009)</strong></a><br /><br /><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL HELD INAPPLICABLE</strong> </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;color:#000099;"><strong>In this summary judgment appeal, the Texas Supreme Court holds that the Plaintiffs should not be prevented (estopped) from pursuing a personal injury claim against the Defendant because they had not included their cause of action as an asset in their bankruptcy. The omission appears to have been inadvertent as the Plaintiffs had disclosed the law suit in other bankruptcy court filings. The error was apparently corrected and no prejudice was caused thereby to an adverse party. Nor did the Plaintiffs benefit from the conduct which the Defendant made the basis of its motion for summary judgment on estoppel grounds. The Court accordingly disapproved the trial court's grant of </strong></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-judicial-estoppel.html"><span style="font-size:100%;color:#000099;"><strong>summary judgment based on judicial estoppel</strong></span></a><span style="font-size:100%;color:#000099;"><strong>, reversed it, and sent the case back to the trial court.</strong></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>FROM THE PER CURIAM OPINION:</strong><br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;">At issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs in a personal injury suit should be estopped from pursuing their claim because they initially omitted it as a listed asset in a pending bankruptcy.The court of appeals, in a divided opinion, concluded that the doctrine of judicial estoppel should apply and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ personal injury claim. 276 S.W.3d 45. </span><br /><span style="color:#000000;"></span><br /><span style="color:#000000;">The court of appeals reasoned that the doctrine applied because of the plaintiffs failure to add the personal injury claim as an asset in their bankruptcy proceeding before the personal-injury defendant pointed out the omission and moved for dismissal.</span><br /><span style="color:#000000;"></span><br /><span style="color:#000000;">Because we disagree that the doctrine is invoked under the circumstances of this case, we reverse and remand the personal injury claim to the trial court.</span><br /><span style="color:#000000;">* * *</span><br /><span style="color:#000000;">A few months after filing the personal injury suit against Building Materials, the Fergusons filed for </span></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-bankruptcy-and-state-courts.html"><span style="font-size:85%;color:#000000;">bankruptcy</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color:#000000;">, which required them to disclose their income, assets, and liabilities to the bankruptcy court, the bankruptcy trustee, and their creditors. See 11 U.S.C. § 521 (a)(1)(A) & (B)(i),(ii),(iii). To comply with these disclosures, the Fergusons completed several forms, including a Statement of Financial Affairs and a Schedule of Personal Property. The Fergusons disclosed the pending lawsuit in the Statement of Financial Affairs, providing the caption and style of the suit, nature of the claim, cause number, and the court in which it had been filed. The Fergusons, however, failed to include it on their Schedule of Personal Property. </span><br /><span style="color:#000000;">* * *</span><br /><span style="color:#000000;">The Fergusons have neither taken a clearly inconsistent position nor gained an unfair advantage in their bankruptcy proceeding. As the dissenting justice in the court of appeals noted, the Fergusons never attempted to conceal the existence of the personal injury suit. 276 S.W.3d at 54. Rather, the Fergusons listed it on their Statement of Financial Affairs and also disclosed it to the trustee at the creditors meeting, at which time they acknowledged the suit and directed the trustee to contact plaintiffs’ counsel if the trustee needed additional information. And, although the Fergusons omitted it from the bankruptcy plan initially confirmed by the court, when the omission was called to their attention, they amended their bankruptcy plan to include its value and agreed to recalculate the amount owed to the creditors. Thus, even assuming the existence of an inconsistent position, the Fergusons have gained no advantage and more importantly, neither Building Materials in the pending personal injury suit nor the creditors in the bankruptcy have suffered any disadvantage. </span><br /><span style="color:#000000;"></span><br /><span style="color:#000000;">The doctrine of judicial estoppel simply does not apply under these circumstances. See Pleasant Glade Assembly of God, 264 S.W.3d at 6-8.We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Tex. Mun. Power Agency v. Pub. Util. Comm’n of Tex., 253 S.W.3d 184, 192 (Tex. 2007). </span><br /><span style="color:#000000;"></span><br /><span style="color:#000000;">Because the Fergusons have taken neither a clearly inconsistent position nor obtained an unfair advantage, the court of</span> </span><div><br /><span style="font-size:85%;color:#000000;">appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of their personal injury claim under the doctrine of judicial estoppel. We accordingly grant the petition for review and, without hearing oral argument, reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. </span></div><div><span style="font-size:85%;"></span> </div><div> </div><div><span style="font-size:85%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:85%;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size:85%;"></span></div><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>CASE DETAILS AND LINKS TO OPINIONS AND BRIEFS FOR</strong> </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Ferguson-v-Building-Materials-Corp-of-America-Tex-2009-applicability-of-judicial-estoppel-doctrine.html"><span style="font-size:85%;">Ferguson v. Building Materials Corp. of America</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29568"><span style="font-size:85%;">08-0589</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> (Tex. Jul. 3, 2009)(per curiam) (judicial </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-estoppel.html"><span style="font-size:85%;">estoppel</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> based on failure to list lawsuit as asset in</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-bankruptcy-and-state-courts.html"><span style="font-size:85%;"> bankruptcy proceeding</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> does not apply; </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-judicial-estoppel.html"><span style="font-size:85%;">summary judgment granted on the basis of judicial estoppel</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> reversed)<br />JASON FERGUSON AND BOBBIE FERGUSON v. BUILDING MATERIALS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, CPC LOGISTICS, INC., AND ROBERT JAMES MADDOX; from Dallas County; 8th district (</span><a href="http://www.8thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=69783"><span style="font-size:85%;">08-07-00051-CV</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">, </span><a href="http://www.8thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/pdfOpinion.asp?OpinionID=64520"><span style="font-size:85%;">276 SW3d 45</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">, 06-12-08 </span><a href="http://www.8thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/pdfOpinion.asp?OpinionID=64520"><span style="font-size:85%;">Opinion of the Eight Court of Appeals </span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">below)<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.<br /></span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/080589.pdf"><span style="font-size:85%;">Per Curiam Opinion</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> [pdf] </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080589.htm"><span style="font-size:85%;">Electronic Briefs in Tex. 2009 No. 08-0589 FERGUSON v. BUILDING MATERIALS CORP. OF AM.</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br /></span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"></span>WOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281586307952194922.post-57813052286543747002009-07-10T17:50:00.000-07:002009-07-11T15:38:35.350-07:00New Trial Granted on Defense Verdict: Supremes Find Trial Judges Guilty of Abuse of Discretion (under new rule decreed hereby)<style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --></style><span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="text"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14;" ><span style="font-size:85%;">IN RE COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER OF LAS COLINAS, SUBSIDIARY, L.P. D/B/A LAS COLINAS MEDICAL CENTER, ANTONETTE CONNER, AND ANNA MATHEW (TEX. 2009)</span><br /></span></span></span><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">EX POST FACTO (CASE) LAW FOR THE OCCASION: </span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></span></p><span class="text"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14;" ><br /></span></span><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 0); font-weight: bold;font-size:100%;" >Supreme Court to trial judges:</span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:100%;" > </span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:100%;" ><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">If you follow existing law and grant a new trial in the interests of justice, you may be abusing your discretion. If you did not know, we are telling you now.</span></span><br /><p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 0);">Suggestion for bench and bar:</span> Keep in mind how the Supremes would feel about Defendants having a favorable verdict taken from them! And also be nice to the Defense. <a href="http://texas-opinions.blogspot.com/2009/07/dolgencorp-of-texas-inc-v-lerma-tex.html">Don't ask for, and don't grant, default judgment</a> just because the defendant's lawyer went AWOL after the jury was selected. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON JUDGES WHO GRANT NEW TRIALS </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Under Texas law, the decision to grant a new trial has long been reserved to the discretion of the trial court judge, who may do so in the interest of justice. No more. Mere justice, without more, will no longer suffice as a reason, after last week's Supreme Court decision in </span><span class="text" style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-In-Re-Columbia-Medical-Center-of-Las-Colinas-Tex-2009-by-Johnson-trial-judge-ordered-by-mandamus-to-give-adequate-reason-for-grant-of-new-trial.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">In Re Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=27214"><span style="line-height: 17px;">06-0416</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (Tex. Jul. 3, 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Johnson-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Phil-Johnson.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Johnson</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">)</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;">.</span><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Trial judges must now justify themselves, lest they be found guilty of abuse by higher authority. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">UNWITTING ABUSE OF DISCRETION</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">In this case, and in two others decided the same day, the trial court judge followed established precedent in granting a new trial “in the interest of justice” following jury verdicts favorable to the health care providers (and an asbestos defendant in another case). </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">What were the Supremes to do to assure the “right” outcome for the favorite constituencies when current law does not permit it? The answer is simple: Change the law. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Existing law gave trial judges much discretion in deciding to grant a new trial after a jury verdict “in the interest of justice” No rule or statute required the trial judge to explain the specific reasons why doing so was necessary. Nor would a request for findings of facts and conclusions of law have been appropriate under such circumstances. After all, this type of order is anything but an order disposing of all claims and parties with a final judgment. For the same reason, the ruling for a new trial could not be appealed. Nor is there a statutory basis for an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a new trial. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">But not to worry. Where there is power, there is a way.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Existing precedents favoring plaintiffs? So it be. Who says that precedent cannot be made more favorable when med-mal and asbestos defendants suffer the indignity of having the fruits of a favorable jury verdict taken away from them (a fate the Supremes inflict with regularity on tort Plaintiffs and their lawyers). Who says we can't set new precedent? </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">And so they did. Five of Nine. And that suffices.<br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Justice O'Neill, joined by Chief Jefferson, Medina, and Green, dissented in jurisprudential disgust at the majority's disrespect for precedent and bewailed the majority's attack on the integrity of the judges below. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">SUPREME LAWMAKERS AT WORK </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Acknowledging that the type of order at issue could not immediately be appealed because no statutory authorization existed for interlocutory appellate review, much less by the Supreme Court, the majority - spearheaded by Johnson – invokes its discretionary mandamus powers instead as a basis to intervene in the pending proceedings below. The extraordinary writ is necessary, it reasons, because otherwise the defendants would not have a remedy. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The majority, in effect, finds that the trial judges who had ruled against the defendants in the three cases, had abused their discretion by not including specific reasons in their new trial orders, something they had no obligation to do until the majority established such a duty by fiat last Friday. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The lesson: With us, you can't win. If the law is on your side, we will just change the law. If a rule we would like to use to produce the desired outcome does not exists, we'll just create it. And if the legislature has not provided for us to get immediately involved when defendants are unjustly deprived of the courtroom victory they undoubtedly deserve (by authorizing interlocutory appeal), we'll just expand our mandamus powers to call the trial judge to task, and hold them accountable. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">So what is the new standard for articulating a sufficient reason for setting aside a jury verdict and granting a new trial? None. The Supremes keep the trial courts guessing. But the message is clear. If you grant a new trial after the defense has had its way with the jury, be prepared to be charged with - and found guilty of - abuse of discretion. And we'll put your name in the written opinion for the whole world to see. After all, we are mandamusing you. We get to meddle with you and how you run your court, but you don't get to mess with us. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The ultimate irony: Mandamus is a remedy to be issued against a specific judge to correct an error. But in at least two of the cases at issue, the original judge is no longer in office. The mandamus goes against successor judges who did not preside over the jury trials. How are they to devine the reasons why their predecessors concluded that something serious enough went awry in those trials to warrant a new trial “in the interest of justice”? How are they to fill the void created by the Supreme's newly established duty to deliver a written justification? </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">And how are the judges who left office ever to clear themselves of the allegations of abuse with respect to the propriety of their ruling?<span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span></p><span class="text" style="font-size:85%;"><b><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 153);"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></b><b><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">SUPREME COURT ORDERS TRIAL COURTS TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY GRANTED NEW TRIALS: "In the Interest of Justice" WILL NO LONGER BE GOOD ENOUGH</span><br /><br /></span></b><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-In-Re-Columbia-Medical-Center-of-Las-Colinas-Tex-2009-by-Johnson-trial-judge-ordered-by-mandamus-to-give-adequate-reason-for-grant-of-new-trial.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">In Re Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=27214"><span style="line-height: 17px;">06-0416</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (Tex. Jul. 3, 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Johnson-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Phil-Johnson.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Johnson</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2009-Mandamus-Decisions-with-Opinions.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">mandamus<br /></span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2009-Mandamus-Decisions-with-Opinions.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">granted</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">) (jury trial, reasons for trial court judge disregarding jury verdict and granting new trial required)<br />(mandamus granted to order trial court to state specific reasons for setting aside jury verdict and </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-motion-for-new-trial.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">granting a<br /></span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-motion-for-new-trial.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">new trial</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">)</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-JNOV.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;"></span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br />IN RE COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER OF LAS COLINAS, SUBSIDIARY, L.P. D/B/A LAS COLINAS MEDICAL<br />CENTER, ANTONETTE CONNER, AND ANNA MATHEW; from Dallas County; 5th district (</span><a href="http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/FILES/05/06/05060611.HTM"><span style="line-height: 17px;">05-06-00611-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, ___ SW3d ___, </span><a href="http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/as_web.exe?c05_06.ask+D+7754242"><span style="line-height: 17px;">05-12-06 Opinion of the Dallas Court of Appeals</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">) as reinstated; stay order issued August 29, 2008, lifted. The Court conditionally grants in part and denies in part the petition for writ of mandamus.<br />Justice </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-In-Re-Columbia-Medical-Center-of-Las-Colinas-Tex-2009-by-Johnson-trial-judge-ordered-by-mandamus-to-give-adequate-reason-for-grant-of-new-trial.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, and Justice Willett joined. [pdf]<br />Justice </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-In-Re-Columbia-Medical-Center-of-Las-Colinas-Tex-2009-Dissent-by-ONeill-no-need-to-change-precedent-and-institute-mandamus-review-of-interlocutory-order-granting-new-trial.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">O'Neill delivered a dissenting opinion</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Medina, and Justice<br />Green joined.<br /></span></span><span class="text" style="font-size:85%;"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br /></span><b style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><span style="line-height: 17px;">AFTER MANDAMUS PETITION-ABATEMENT PING-PONG INVOLVING THREE DIFFERENT TRIAL COURT JUDGES, SUPREMES ORDER THE LAST ONE TO COME UP WITH A VALID EXPLANATION WHY NEW TRIAL WAS GRANTED</span></b><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">.</span><br /></span><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-In-Re-Baylor-Medical-Center-at-Garland-Tex-2009-by-Johnson-MNT-new-trial-granted-multiple-trial-court-judges-explanation-ordered-by-mandamus.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">In Re Baylor Medical Center at Garland</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=27288"><span style="line-height: 17px;">06-0491</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (Tex. Jul 3, 2009) (mandamus granted)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Johnson-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Phil-Johnson.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Johnson</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">)<br />(trial judge granted new trial and then resigned, mandamus abatement, current judge ordered to provide<br />reasons for granting new trial) <br />IN RE BAYLOR MEDICAL CENTER AT GARLAND; from Dallas County;<br />5th district (</span><a href="http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/FILES/05/05/05051663.HTM"><span style="line-height: 17px;">05-05-01663-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, ___ SW3d ___, </span><a href="http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/as_web.exe?c05_06.ask+D+3521138"><span style="line-height: 17px;">01-04-06 Opinion of the Dallas Court below</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">)<br />as reinstated, stay order issued August 29, 2008, lifted. The Court conditionally grants in part and denies in part the petition for writ of mandamus.<br />Justice </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/060491.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, and Justice Willett joined.<br />Justice </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-In-Re-Baylor-Med-Ctr-at-Garland-Dissent-by-ONeill-whould-not-mandamus-trial-court-judge-to-provide-more-specific-explanation-for-granting-new-trial.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">O'Neill delivered a dissenting opinion</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Medina, and Justice<br />Green joined.<br /></span></span><span class="text" style="font-size:85%;"><span style="line-height: 17px;"><br /></span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-In-Re-E-I-du-Pont-de-Nemours-and-Co-Tex-2009-grant-of-new-trial-after-jury-verdict-requires-adequate-explanation-mandamus-granted.html"><b><span style="line-height: 17px;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">TRIAL JUDGE ORDERED TO FURNISH EXPLANATION FOR GRANTING NEW TRIAL</span><br /></span></b></a><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-In-Re-E-I-du-Pont-de-Nemours-and-Co-Tex-2009-grant-of-new-trial-after-jury-verdict-requires-adequate-explanation-mandamus-granted.html"><span style="line-height: 17px;">In Re E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Co.</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29603"><span style="line-height: 17px;">08-0625</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;"> (Tex. Jul. 3, 2009)(Johnson) (mandamus granted: trial court's grant of new trial following jury verdict requires specific explanation)<br />IN RE E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; from Jefferson County;<br />9th district (</span><a href="http://www.9thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=11830"><span style="line-height: 17px;">09-08-00318-CV</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, ___ SW3d ___, </span><a href="http://www.9thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/pdfOpinion.asp?OpinionID=9579"><span style="line-height: 17px;">07-24-08 Opinion of the Ninth Court of Appeals</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">)<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court<br />conditionally grants in part and denies in part the petition for writ of mandamus.<br />Justice </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/080625.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;">Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, and Justice Willett joined.<br />Justice </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/080625d.pdf"><span style="line-height: 17px;">O'Neill delivered a dissenting opinion</span></a><span style="line-height: 17px;">, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Medina, and Justice<br />Green joined.<br /></span></span><span class="text"><span style="line-height: 17px;font-size:14;" ><br /></span></span>WOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281586307952194922.post-32351909633765564242009-07-08T14:52:00.000-07:002009-08-23T15:13:49.753-07:00Default Judgment Etiquette Enforced: Dolgencorp of Texas, Inc. v. Lerma (Tex. 2009)<span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153); FONT-WEIGHT: bold"></span><br /><span style="COLOR: rgb(0,0,153); FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Be Nice to the Defense Counsel and Don't Ask for Entry of Default Judgment While He Is Busy In Another Venue<br /><br /><span style="COLOR: rgb(204,0,0)">... or else we will reverse. </span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Dolgencorp-of-Texas-Inc-v-Lerma-Tex-2009-motion-for-new-trial-after-post-answer-default-judgment.html">Dolgencorp of Texas v. Lerma</a> (Tex. 2009)<br /><br />In this appeal from a post-answer (and post-jury-selection) default judgment the Supremes remind court and counsel to be understanding when it comes to the logistics of being in two places at the same time. Supremes find that the elements of the Craddock test to set aside default for no-show at trial were satisfied where defense counsel was actually in trial in a different county and there was no secret about it, or lack of effort to deal with and resolve the scheduling problem. The trial judge just wouldn't go along with the continuance, and now stands rebuked. </span><br /><br /><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">FROM THE PER CURIAM OPINION:</span><br /><br /><p style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%" class="MsoNormal">Finally, this record compels us to note that judges and lawyers should, and in most instances do, extend common and professional courtesies to other judges and lawyers. <i>See</i> <span style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: uppercase">Tex. <span class="GramE">Code Jud.</span> Conduct</span>, Preamble (noting, in part, that judges must strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system and should be governed in their judicial conduct by general ethical standards); <span style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: uppercase">Tex. Lawyer’s Creed-A Mandate for Professionalism</span>, III(11) (“I will not take advantage, by causing any default or dismissal to be rendered, when I know the identity of an opposing counsel, without first inquiring about that counsel’s intention to proceed.”). Here, despite attempts by other judges to contact the trial judge and both <span class="SpellE">Lerma’s</span> counsel and the trial judge being aware that Dollar General’s counsel was in trial elsewhere, judgment was entered against a party that by neither word nor deed exhibited intention to abandon or frustrate the proceedings. It is a credit to the trial bench and bar that this type of record rarely ends up before appellate courts.</p><p style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%" class="MsoNormal">We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. The case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.</p><b><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"></span></b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Dolgencorp-of-Texas-Inc-v-Lerma-Tex-2009-motion-for-new-trial-after-post-answer-default-judgment.html"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">CASE DETAILS AND LINKS FOR Dolgencorp of Texas, Inc. v. Lerma</span></a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">,</span> No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29016"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">08-0032</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> (Tex. Jul. 3, 2009)(per curiam) (</span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-motion-for-new-trial.html">motion for new trial</a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"> after <a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-default-judgment.html">post-answer</a></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-default-judgment.html"> default judgment</a> due to counsel's scheduling conflict should have been granted)<br />DOLGENCORP OF TEXAS, INC., D/B/A DOLLAR GENERAL STORE v. MARIA ISABEL LERMA, INDIVIDUALLY, ET AL.; from Cameron County; 13th district (</span><a href="http://www.13thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=13770"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">13-03-00314-CV</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">, </span><a href="http://www.13thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLOpinion.asp?OpinionID=16245"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">241 SW3d 584</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">, </span><a href="http://www.13thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLOpinion.asp?OpinionID=16245"><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">08-23-07 Opinion by the Thirteenth Court of Appeals below</span></a><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px">)<br />Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.<br />Per Curiam Opinion<br /><br /><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">RELATED CONCEPTS:</span> <a href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/law-default-judgment-post-answer.html">POST-ANSWER DEFAULT JUDGMENTS</a>, <a href="http://www.houston-opinions.com/law-motion-for-new-trial-after-default-judgment.html">MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL</a>, POST-JUDGMENT MOTIONS, <a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-Craddock-test-to-set-aside-default-judgment.html">ELEMENTS OF CRADDICK TEST, CONSCIOUS INDIFFERENCE, ACCIDENT OR MISTAKE AS REASON FOR MISSING TRIAL SETTING</a>.<br /><br /><br /></span><span style="LINE-HEIGHT: 17px"></span>WOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281586307952194922.post-59902734651413261062009-07-05T15:31:00.000-07:002009-07-08T14:41:27.237-07:00Texas Supreme Court Again Expands Mandamus Powers [for the benefit of favored defendants]<span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/070309.asp"><strong>July 3, 2009 - Opinions Released</strong></a><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><strong><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">TEXAS SUPREME COURT ORDERS JUDGES TO EXPLAIN AND JUSTIFY WHY THEY GRANTED NEW TRIALS [in cases in which tort claim defendants had prevailed with the jury]</span></strong><br /><strong></strong><br /></span><strong><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">"<em><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">In the Interest of Justice</span></em>" - a common label for judicial discretion in that regard and in others - will no longer pass muster as a sufficient ground. </span><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);font-size:100%;" >In other cases in which decisions were released just in time for Fourth of July, the Supremes take additional steps to assure that prevailing defendants in health-care liability litigation can saddle unsuccessful plaintiffs and/or their lawyers with attorneys fees and costs as a sanction ... and as deterrence for other would-be plaintiffs: <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Judicial Med-Mal Reform <em>Plus</em></span></span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> </span></span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"></span></strong><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-In-Re-Columbia-Medical-Center-of-Las-Colinas-Tex-2009-by-Johnson-trial-judge-ordered-by-mandamus-to-give-adequate-reason-for-grant-of-new-trial.html"><strong>In Re Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas (Tex. 2009)</strong></a></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>,</strong> </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">No. </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=27214"><span style="font-size:78%;">06-0416</span></a><span style="font-size:78%;"> (Tex. Jul. 3, 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Johnson-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Phil-Johnson.html"><span style="font-size:78%;">Johnson</span></a><span style="font-size:78%;">) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2009-Mandamus-Decisions-with-Opinions.html"><span style="font-size:78%;">mandamus </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2009-Mandamus-Decisions-with-Opinions.html"><span style="font-size:78%;">granted</span></a><span style="font-size:78%;">) (reasons for trial court judge disregarding jury verdict and granting new trial required) (mandamus relief granted to direct trial court to elaborate on reasons for setting aside jury verdict and </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-motion-for-new-trial.html"><span style="font-size:78%;">granting new trial</span></a><span style="font-size:78%;">) (also see --> </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-JNOV.html"><span style="font-size:78%;">JNOV</span></a><span style="font-size:78%;">) IN RE COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER OF LAS COLINAS, SUBSIDIARY, L.P. D/B/A LAS COLINAS MEDICAL CENTER, ANTONETTE CONNER, AND ANNA MATHEW; from Dallas County;5th district (</span><a href="http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/FILES/05/06/05060611.HTM"><span style="font-size:78%;">05-06-00611-CV</span></a><span style="font-size:78%;">, ___ SW3d ___, </span><a href="http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/as_web.exe?c05_06.ask+D+7754242"><span style="font-size:78%;">05-12-06 Opinion of the Dallas Court of Appeals</span></a><span style="font-size:78%;">) as reinstated; stay order issued August 29, 2008, lifted. The Court conditionally grants in part and denies in part the petition for writ of mandamus. Justice </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/060416.pdf"><span style="font-size:78%;">Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court</span></a><span style="font-size:78%;">, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, and Justice Willett joined. [pdf] Justice </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/060416d.pdf"><span style="font-size:78%;">O'Neill delivered a dissenting opinion</span></a><span style="font-size:78%;">, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Medina, and Justice Green joined. [pdf] </span><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20060416.htm"><span style="font-size:78%;">E</span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20060416.htm"><span style="font-size:78%;">-</span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20060416.htm"><span style="font-size:78%;">Briefs in Tex 2009 No. 06-0416 IN RE COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER OF LAS </span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20060416.htm"><span style="font-size:78%;">COLINAS </span></a><span style="font-size:78%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">The Texas Constitution provides that the right of trial by jury “shall remain inviolate.” Tex. Const. art. 1, § 15. The issue before us is whether, after a jury has rendered its verdict, the trial court may disregard that verdict, grant a new trial, and explain its action only as being “in the interests of justice and fairness.” We conclude that just as appellate courts that set aside jury verdicts are required to detail reasons for doing so, trial courts must give more explanation than “in the interest of justice” for setting aside a jury verdict. We conditionally grant mandamus relief directing the trial court to more specifically set out the reasons for which it set aside the jury verdict and granted a new trial.Conclusion: We conditionally grant relief. We direct the trial court to specify the reasons it refused to enter judgment on the jury verdict and ordered a new trial as to Columbia. The reasons should be clearly identified and reasonably specific. Broad statements such as “in the interest of justice” are not sufficiently specific. We are confident the trial court will comply. The writ will issue only if it fails to do so. </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>AFTER MANDAMUS PETITION-ABATEMENT PING-PONG INVOLVING THREE DIFFERENT TRIAL COURT JUDGES, SUPREMES ORDER THE LAST ONE TO SERVE UP A VALID EXPLANATION WHY NEW TRIAL WAS WARRANTED IN THE CASE. </strong><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-In-Re-Baylor-Medical-Center-at-Garland-Tex-2009-by-Johnson-MNT-new-trial-granted-multiple-trial-court-judges-explanation-ordered-by-mandamus.html"><strong>In Re Baylor Medical Center at Garland (Tex. 2009)</strong> </a>, </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">No. <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=27288">06-0491</a> (Tex. Jul 3, 2009) (mandamus granted)(<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Johnson-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Phil-Johnson.html">Johnson</a>) (trial judge granted new trial and then resigned, mandamus abatement, current judge ordered to provide reason for granting new trial) </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">IN RE BAYLOR MEDICAL CENTER AT GARLAND; from Dallas County; 5th district (<a href="http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/FILES/05/05/05051663.HTM">05-05-01663-CV</a>, ___ SW3d ___, <a href="http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/as_web.exe?c05_06.ask+D+3521138">01-04-06 Opinion of the Dallas Court below</a>) as reinstated, stay order issued August 29, 2008, lifted. The Supreme Court conditionally grants in part and denies in part the petition for writ of mandamus. Justice <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/060491.pdf">Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court</a>, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, and Justice Willett joined. [pdf] </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">Justice <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/060491d.pdf">O'Neill delivered a dissenting opinion</a>, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Medina, and Justice Green joined. [pdf] View <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20060491.htm">Electronic Briefs in Tex. 2009 No. 06-0491 IN RE BAYLOR MED. CTR. AT GARLAND</a> </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>NO PARTNERSHIP FORMED, AND THUS NONE EXISTED, UNDER TEXAS REVISED PARTNERSHIP ACT<br /></strong><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Ingram-v-Deere-Tex-2009-by-Wainwright-partnership-not-proven-to-exist-factors-to-be-considered.html"><strong>Ingram v. Deere (Tex. 2009) </strong></a>, </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">No. <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=27611">06-0815</a> (Tex. Jul 3, 2009)(<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Wainwright-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Dale-Wainwright.html">Wainwright</a>)(dispute over existence of partnership under TRPA, partnership criteria/factors, fiduciary duty) (existence of <a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-partnership-disputes.html">partnership</a> not proven, take-nothing judgment reinstated) </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">JESSE C. INGRAM, PH.D. AND BEHAVIORAL PSYCHOLOGY CLINIC, P.C. v. LOUIS DEERE, D.O. AND HILLVALE MEDICAL GROUP ASSOCIATION D/B/A HILLVALE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION; from Dallas County; 5th district (<a href="http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/FILES/05/05/05050063.HTM">05-05-00063-CV</a>, <a href="http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/as_web.exe?c05_06.ask+D+7052858">198 SW3d 96</a>, <a href="http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/as_web.exe?c05_06.ask+D+7052858">04-27-06 Opinion of the Dallas court of Appeals</a>) 2 petitions. The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and reinstates the trial court's judgment. Justice <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/060815.pdf">Wainwright delivered the opinion of the Court</a>, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice Medina, Justice Green, and Justice Willett joined, in which Justice O'Neill and Justice Brister joined except as to part II.D.5.a, and in which Justice Johnson joined except as to part II.D.2. [pdf] </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">Justice <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/060815c.pdf">Johnson delivered a concurring opinion</a>. [pdf] View Electronic Briefs in <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20060815.htm">Tex. 2009 No. 06-0815 JESSE C. INGRAM, PH.D. v. LOUIS DEERE, D.O</a>. </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">In this case, we review a court of appeals judgment reinstating a jury verdict finding that Louis Deere, D.O. and Jesse C. Ingram, Ph.D. formed a partnership pursuant to the Texas Revised Partnership Act (TRPA).TRPA lists five factors to be considered in determining whether a partnership has been formed. This determination should be made by examining the totality of the circumstances in each case, with no single factor being either necessary or sufficient to prove the existence of a partnership. Here, the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that a partnership existed between Ingram and Deere. Because the evidence of the formation of a partnership is legally insufficient, we do not address the issue raised in Ingram’s cross-petition challenging the court of appeals’ decision that Ingram owed Deere a fiduciary duty. Accordingly, we reinstate the trial court’s take-nothing judgment in favor of Ingram and reverse the court of appeals’ judgment.Whether a partnership exists must be determined by an examination of the totality of the circumstances. Evidence of none of the factors under the Texas Revised Partnership Act will preclude the recognition of a partnership, and even conclusive evidence of only one factor will also normally be insufficient to establish the existence of a partnership under TRPA. However, conclusive evidence of all five factors establishes a partnership as a matter of law. In this case, Deere has not provided legally sufficient evidence of any of the five TRPA factors to prove the existence of a partnership. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and reinstate the trial court’s take-nothing judgment.</span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>APPRAISAL PROVISION IN INSURANCE CONTRACT ENFORCED </strong><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-State-Farm-Lloyds-v-Johnson-by-Brister-appraisal-clause-in-insurance-contract.html"><strong>State Farm Lloyds v. Johnson (Tex. 2009),</strong> </a></span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">No. <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=27866">06-1071</a> (Tex. Jul. 3, 2009)(<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Brister-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice.html">Brister</a>) (<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2009-Insurance-Law-Decisions-Texas-Supreme-Court-Appeals.html">INSURANCE LAW</a>: appraisal clause in insurance context, hail damage to home of insured property owner) STATE FARM LLOYDS v. BECKY ANN JOHNSON; from Collin County; 5th district (<a href="http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/FILES/05/05/05050640.HTM">05-05-00640-CV</a>, <a href="http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/as_web.exe?c05_07.ask+D+935622">204 SW3d 897</a>, <a href="http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/as_web.exe?c05_07.ask+D+935622">10-27-06 Opinion of the Dallas Court of Appeals</a>) The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment. Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf] View <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20061071.htm">Electronic Briefs in Tex. 2009 No. 06-1071 STATE FARM LLOYDS v. JOHNSON</a> </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">Appraisal clauses have appeared in most property insurance policies in Texas for many years. Although they rarely detail the scope of appraisal, there has rarely been any litigation about it. The parties here agree that the scope of appraisal includes damage questions and excludes liability questions, but they disagree which is involved in this dispute about hail damage to a homeowner’s roof. Because an appraisal has yet to take place, we agree with the insured that the record does not establish that it will exceed the permissible scope of appraisal. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals’ judgment in favor of the insured.We do not decide today whether the appraisal conducted on remand will necessarily be binding. The summary judgment record does not, and probably cannot, answer that question until after the appraisal has taken place. But for the reasons stated above, we affirm the court of appeals’ order granting Johnson’s motion for summary judgment to compel State Farm to participate in the appraisal process, and remanding the issue of her attorney’s fees to the trial court for consideration.</span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>SUPREMES AGAIN GRANT REVIEW TO VINDICATE HEALTH CARE DEFENDANT'S CLAIM TO SANCTIONS AFTER ABORTIVE MED-MAL SUIT - INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL CONCERNING EXPERT REPORT OBJECTIONS WAS NOT REQUIRED AS A PRELUDE.<br /></strong><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Hernandez-MD-v-Ebrom-Tex-2009-by-Johnson-HCLC-failure-to-file-interlocutory-appeal-does-not-preclude-sanctions-against-Plaintiff.html"><strong>Hernandez, MD v. Ebrom (Tex. 2009)</strong></a><strong>,</strong> </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">No. <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=28156">07-0240</a> (Tex. Jul 3, 2009)(<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Jefferson-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Chief-Justice-Wallace-Jefferson.html">Johnson</a>) (<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2009-HCLC-Texas-Supreme-Court-Decisions-in-Medical-Malpractice-Appeals.html">HCLC</a>, does med-mal defendant forfeit right to seek sanctions by failing to pursue by interlocutory appeal challenge to expert report where objection was overruled by the trial court?) </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">MIGUEL HERNANDEZ, M.D. v. JULIOUS EBROM AND RICHARD HUNNICUTT; from Hidalgo County;13th district (<a href="http://www.13thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=15812">13-06-00053 CV</a>, ___ SW3d ___, <a href="http://www.13thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLOpinion.asp?OpinionID=15802">02-08-07 Opinion of the court below</a>) opposed motion for leave to file post-submission brief granted </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice Green, and Justice Willett joined. [pdf] Chief <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/070240d.pdf">Justice Jefferson delivered a dissenting opinion</a>, in which Justice O'Neill and Justice Medina joined. [pdf] View <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20070240.htm">Electronic Briefs in Tex. 2009 No. 07-0240 MIGUEL HERNANDEZ, M.D. v. EBROM</a> </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">A defendant in a health care liability claim may appeal from the interlocutory order denying its objection to the plaintiff’s expert report. The statutes authorizing the defendant’s objection and appeal do not impose consequences if an interlocutory appeal is not pursued. In this case, we consider whether a defendant health care provider’s failure to challenge the adequacy of an expert report by interlocutory appeal precludes a challenge of the report by appeal from a final judgment when the plaintiff later nonsuits before trial. The court of appeals held it does; we hold it does not. We reverse and remand to the court of appeals. </span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>JURISPRUDENTIAL CURIO: FIRST THE AGENCY SUES, THEN IT CLAIMS THE COURT DOES NOT (YET?) HAVE JURISDICTION</strong><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-ERS-Texas-v-Duenez-Tex-2009-by-Brister-exclusive-agency-jurisdiction-scope-applicability.html"><strong>ERS of Texas v. Duenez (Tex. 2009)</strong></a><strong>,</strong> </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">No. <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=28322">07-0410</a> (Tex. Jul 3, 2009)(<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Brister-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice.html">Brister</a>) (administrative law, agency exclusive jurisdiction doctrine) EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF TEXAS v. XAVIER DUENEZ AND IRENE DUENEZ; from Calhoun County; 13th district (<a href="http://www.13thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=15700">13-05-00729 CV</a>, ___ SW3d ___, <a href="http://www.13thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLOpinion.asp?OpinionID=15914">04-05-07 Opinion below</a>) Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court dismisses the petition for want of jurisdiction. Justice <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/070410.pdf">Brister delivered the opinion of the Court</a>, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice O'Neill, Justice Medina, Justice Green, and Justice Willett joined. [pdf] Justice <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/070410d1.pdf">Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion</a>. [pdf] Justice <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/070410d2.pdf">Wainwright delivered a dissenting opinion</a>, in which Justice Johnson joined. [pdf] View <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20070410.htm">Electronic Briefs in Tex. 2009 No. 07-410 EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF TEXAS v. </a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20070410.htm">DUENEZ</a> </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">Construing the Act as a whole, we conclude that the court of appeals’ opinion rejecting ERS’s claim of exclusive jurisdiction here does not conflict with this Court’s opinion in Duenez I affirming ERS’s exclusive jurisdiction of questions relating to payment of benefits. Accordingly, without argument, we dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction. </span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>A MAJORITY OF THE SUPREMES DENIES MANDAMUS RELIEF IN DISPUTE OVER LEGAL CAPACITY ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO ARBITRATION AGREEMENT. NO LESS THAN FOUR (4) SEPARATE OPINIONS ARE HANDED DOWN.</strong><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-In-Re-Morgan-Stanley-and-Co-Inc-Tex-2009-by-Medina-legal-capacity-and-arbitration-agreement-who-decides-issue.html"><strong>In re Morgan Stanley & Co, Inc. (Tex. 2009),</strong> </a></span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">No. <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=28575">07-0665</a> (Tex. Jul. 3, 2009)(Medina) (<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-arbitration.html">arbitration</a> vs. litigation: <a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-legal-incapacity.html">legal </a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-legal-incapacity.html">capacity</a> of party to arbitration agreement, who decides the issue?) </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">IN RE MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INC., SUCCESSOR TO MORGAN STANLEY DW, INC.; from Dallas County; 5th district (<a href="http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/FILES/05/07/05070590.HTM">05-07-00590-CV</a>, ___ SW3d ___, <a href="http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/as_web.exe?c05_07.ask+D+10172721">07-17-07 Opinion by the Dallas CoA</a>) </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">Justice <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/070665.pdf">Medina delivered the opinion of the Court</a> [pdf], in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Wainwright, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined. </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">Justice <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/070665c1.pdf">Brister delivered a concurring opinion</a>. [pdf] </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">Justice <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/070665c2.pdf">Willett delivered a concurring opinion</a>. [pdf] </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">Justice <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/070665d.pdf">Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion</a>. [pdf](Justice O'Neill not sitting) <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20070665.htm">Electronic Briefs in Tex. 2009 No. 07-0665 IN RE MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INC., SUCCESSOR TO </a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20070665.htm">MORGAN STANLEY DW INC</a>. </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">In this original mandamus proceeding, the relator seeks to compel arbitration in accordance with its agreement in the underlying case. The other putative party to the agreement resists arbitration on the ground that she lacked the mental capacity to assent to the contract. The question here is whether the court or the arbitrator should decide this issue of capacity. The trial court concluded that it was the proper forum. We agree and, accordingly, deny the petition for writ of mandamus. </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">We agree that Prima Paint reserves to the court issues like the one here, that the signor lacked the mental capacity to assent. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to yield the question to the arbitrator. Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>DEFAULT JUDGMENT IMPROPER WHERE COUNSEL'S NO-SHOW FOR TRIAL WAS EXCUSABLE DUE TO CONFLICTING ENGAGEMENT IN ANOTHER COURT. NEW TRIAL WARRANTED UNDER CRADDOCK TEST</strong><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/080032.pdf"><strong>Dolgencorp of Texas, Inc. v. Lerma (Tex. 2009)</strong></a><strong>,</strong> </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">No. <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29016">08-0032</a> (Tex. 2009)(per curiam) (<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-motion-for-new-trial.html">motion for new trial</a> after post-answer<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-default-judgment.html"> default</a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-default-judgment.html"> judgment</a> due to counsel's scheduling conflict should have been granted; counsel was in trial in another county, and both counsel and the other court had numerous communications with the court that entered default judgment on no-show) </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">DOLGENCORP OF TEXAS, INC., D/B/A DOLLAR GENERAL STORE v. MARIA ISABEL LERMA, INDIVIDUALLY, ET AL.; from Cameron County; 13th district (<a href="http://www.13thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=13770">13-03-00314-CV</a>, <a href="http://www.13thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLOpinion.asp?OpinionID=16245">241 SW3d 584</a>,<a href="http://www.13thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLOpinion.asp?OpinionID=16245">08-23-07 Opinion by the Thirteenth Court of Appeals below</a>) Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court. Per Curiam Opinion [pdf] <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080032.htm">Electronic Briefs in Tex. 2009 No. 08-0032 DOLLAR GENERAL STORE v. LERMA</a> </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">This appeal arises from a post-answer default judgment entered against Dolgencorp of Texas, Inc., d/b/a Dollar General Store (“Dollar General”) when its counsel failed to appear for trial because he was in a preferential trial setting in another county. Because Dollar General established it was entitled to a new trial pursuant to the factors set out in Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 133 S.W.2d 124, 126 (Tex. 1939), we reverse and remand for a new trial. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. The case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.</span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>SUPREME COURT AGAIN STEPS IN TO ASSURE DEFENDANT IN UNSUCCESSFUL MED-MAL SUIT GETS TO COLLECT ATTORNEY'S FEES AS SANCTION</strong><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Aviles-MD-v-Aguirre-Tex-2009-per-curiam-HCLC-sanctions-to-be-awarded-on-remand.html"><strong>Aviles, MD v. Aguirre (Tex. 2009)</strong></a></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>, </strong></span><br /></span><span style="font-size:78%;">No. <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29222">08-0240</a> (Tex. Jul 3, 2009)(per curiam) (<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2009-HCLC-Texas-Supreme-Court-Decisions-in-Medical-Malpractice-Appeals.html">HCLC</a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-sanctions.html"> sanctions</a> under former med-mal law to be awarded on remand) </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">WILFREDO AVILES, M.D., AND WILFREDO AVILES, M.D., P.A. v. ALBERT AGUIRRE, ET AL.; from Hidalgo County; 13th district (<a href="http://www.13thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=16273">13-06-00495-CV</a>, ___ SW3d ___, <a href="http://www.13thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLOpinion.asp?OpinionID=16554">02-14-08 Opinion below</a>)(<a href="http://www.13thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLOpinion.asp?OpinionID=16566">Dissenting opinion by Rose Vela</a>) Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.Per Curiam Opinion [pdf] <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080240.htm">Electronic Briefs 08-0240 WILFREDO AVILES, M.D. v. AGUIRRE</a> </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">Like the current statute,1 former article 4590i required dismissal of a health-care claim if no timely expert report was served, and an award of attorney’s fees and costs “incurred” by the defendant. Act of May 5, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 140, § 13.01, 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws 985, 986, repealed by Act of June 2, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 204, § 10.09, 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 847, 884 (hereinafter “article 4590i”). In this case, the trial court granted dismissal but denied attorney’s fees because they had been incurred by the defendant’s insurer rather than the defendant himself. A divided court of appeals affirmed. ___ S.W.3d ___. As this reflects a basic misunderstanding of both the statute and liability insurance, we reverse.</span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>EXCLUSIVE REMEDY? - NO (IT'S NOT A WORKER'S COMP CASE)<br /></strong><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Dealers-Electrical-Supply-Co-v-Scoggins-Construction-Co-Inc-Tex-2009-by-ONeill-construction-subcontractors-bonding-requirement-labor-materials-remedies.html"><strong>Dealers Electrical Supply Co. v. Scoggins Construction Co, Inc. (Tex. 2009)</strong></a></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>, </strong></span><br /></span><span style="font-size:78%;">No. <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29254">08-0272</a> (Jul. 3, 2009)(<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-ONeill-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Harriet-O-Neill.html">O'Neill</a>) (<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2008-Construction-Law-Decisions-Texas-Supreme-Court-Appeals.html">construction law</a>: bond requirement for workers and materialmen, supplies of materials, Texas Construction Trust Fund Act no exclusive remedy) </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">DEALERS ELECTRICAL SUPPLY CO. v. SCOGGINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. ANDBILL R. SCOGGINS; from Hidalgo County;13th district (<a href="http://www.13thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=16138">13-06-00368-CV</a>, ___ SW3d ___, <a href="http://www.13thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLOpinion.asp?OpinionID=16479">12-20-07 Opinion by the Thirteenth Court of Appeals</a>). The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court. Justice <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/080272.pdf">O'Neill delivered the opinion of the Court</a>. [pdf] <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080272.htm">Electronic Briefs in Tex. No. 08-0272 DEALERS ELECTRICAL SUPPLY CO. v. SCOGGINS </a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080272.htm">CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.</a> </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">Chapter 2253 of the Texas Government Code, historically called the McGregor Act, requires a prime contractor on a public-work contract to execute a payment bond to protect laborers and materialmen who work on or supply materials for the project. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 2253.021(a)(2). In this case, an electrical subcontractor on a bonded public-work project walked off the job, leaving his supplier of electrical parts unpaid. The supplier missed the McGregor Act deadline to pursue a claim on the bond, and filed this suit against the prime contractor for violation of the Texas Construction Trust Fund Act, Tex. Prop. Code §§ 162.001(a), 162.031(a), and breach of a separate Joint Check Agreement designed to ensure payment for materials supplied to the subcontractor. We must decide whether the McGregor Act provides the supplier’s exclusive remedy. We hold that it does not. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and remand the case for the court to consider the remaining issues it did not address. </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL BASED ON NONDISCLOSURE IN BANKRUPTCY COURT HELD NOT TO APPLY</strong><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Ferguson-v-Building-Materials-Corp-of-America-Tex-2009-applicability-of-judicial-estoppel-doctrine.html"><strong>Ferguson v. Building Materials Corp. of America (Tex. 2009)</strong></a></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>, </strong></span><br /></span><span style="font-size:78%;">No. <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29568">08-0589</a> (Tex. Jul. 3, 2009)(per curiam) (judicial <a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-estoppel.html">estoppel</a> based on <a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-bankruptcy-and-state-courts.html">bankruptcy proceeding</a> does not apply here) JASON FERGUSON AND BOBBIE FERGUSON v. BUILDING MATERIALS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, CPC LOGISTICS, INC., AND ROBERT JAMES MADDOX; from Dallas County;8th district (<a href="http://www.8thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=69783">08-07-00051-CV</a>, <a href="http://www.8thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/pdfOpinion.asp?OpinionID=64520">276 SW3d 45</a>, 06-12-08 Opinion of the Eight Court of Appeals below) Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court. <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/080589.pdf">Per Curiam Opinion</a> [pdf] <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080589.htm">Electronic Briefs in Tex. 2009 No. 08-0589 FERGUSON v. BUILDING MATERIALS CORP. OF AM.</a> </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">At issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs in a personal injury suit should be estopped from pursuing their claim because they initially omitted it as a listed asset in a pending bankruptcy. The court of appeals, in a divided opinion, concluded that the doctrine of judicial estoppel should apply and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ personal injury claim. 276 S.W.3d 45. The court of appeals reasoned that the doctrine applied because of the plaintiffs failure to add the personal injury claim as an asset in their bankruptcy proceeding before the personal-injury defendant pointed out the omission and moved for dismissal. Because we disagree that the doctrine is invoked under the circumstances of this case, we reverse and remand the personal injury claim to the trial court. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Tex. Mun. Power Agency v. Pub. Util. Comm’n of Tex., 253 S.W.3d 184, 192 (Tex. 2007). Because the Fergusons have taken neither a clearly inconsistent position nor obtained an unfair advantage, the court of appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of their personal injury claim under the doctrine of judicial estoppel. We accordingly grant the petition for review and, without hearing oral argument, reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. See Tex. R. App. P. 59.1. </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>ANOTHER NEW TRIAL GRANTED - ANOTHER MANDAMUS ISSUED TO GET THE TRIAL COURT TO JUSTIFY THAT ACT (and explain why judgment was not entered for the defense)<br /></strong><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-In-Re-E-I-du-Pont-de-Nemours-and-Co-Tex-2009-grant-of-new-trial-after-jury-verdict-requires-adequate-explanation-mandamus-granted.html"><strong>In Re E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. (Tex. 2009).</strong></a>, </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">No. <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29603">08-0625</a> (Tex. Jul. 3, 2009)(<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Johnson-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Phil-Johnson.html">Johnson</a>) (mandamus granted: trial court's grant of new trial following jury verdict requires specific explanation) </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">IN RE E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; from Jefferson County;9th district (<a href="http://www.9thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=11830">09-08-00318-CV</a>, ___ SW3d ___, <a href="http://www.9thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/pdfOpinion.asp?OpinionID=9579">07-24-08 Opinion of the Ninth Court of Appeals</a>) Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants in part and denies in part the petition for writ of mandamus. Justice <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/080625.pdf">Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court</a>, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, and Justice Willett joined. [pdf] Justice <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/080625d.pdf">O'Neill delivered a dissenting opinion</a>, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Medina, and Justice Green joined. [pdf] <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080625.htm">Electronic Briefs in Tex. 2009 No. 08-0625 IN RE E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND CO</a>. </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">At issue in this mandamus proceeding is whether the trial court abused its discretion by disregarding the jury verdict and granting a new trial without giving its reasons for doing so. Based on In re Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. 2009), we hold that it did and grant relief. Without hearing oral argument, we conditionally grant DuPont’s petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(c). The trial court is directed to specify the reasons for which it disregarded the jury verdict and ordered a new trial. We are confident the trial court will comply, and the writ will issue only if it fails to do so. </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>COURT-BLESSED DISCOVERY PRIOR TO RULING ON MOTION TO FORCE ARBITRATION PROMPTS HIGH COURT TO INTERVENE</strong><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-In-Re-Houston-Pipeline-Co-LP-Tex-2009-discovery-orders-and-motion-to-compel-arbitration.html"><strong>In Re Houston Pipeline Co., L.P. (Tex. 2009)</strong></a><strong>,</strong> </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">No. <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/Case.asp?FilingID=29764">08-0800</a> (Tex. 2009)(<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2009-Per-Curiam-Opinions-Tex-Sup-Ct.html">per curiam</a>) (discovery orders and motion to compel <a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-arbitration-mandamus.html">arbitration</a>) (trial court ordered to rule on motion to compel arbitration, and to lift discovery orders). </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">IN RE HOUSTON PIPE LINE COMPANY, L.P., ET AL.; from Victoria County;13th district (<a href="http://www.13thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=16789">13-07-00299-CV</a> & <a href="http://www.13thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=16850">13-07-00362-CV</a>, <a href="http://www.13thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/pdfOpinion.asp?OpinionID=17102">269 SW3d 90</a>,<a href="http://www.13thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/pdfOpinion.asp?OpinionID=17102">08-26-08 Opinion of the Thirteenth Court of Appeals</a>)stay order issued October 17, 2008, lifted. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus. <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jul/080800.pdf">Per Curiam Opinion</a> [pdf] <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080800.htm">Electronic Briefs in Tex. 2009 No. 08-0800 IN RE HOUSTON PIPE LINE CO., L.P. D/B/A HOUSTON PIPE </a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/files/20080800.htm">LINE CO</a>. </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">When deciding a motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, a Texas trial court applies Texas procedure, which permits discovery to be taken when it is needed before the arbitration or to permit the arbitration to be conducted in an orderly manner. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 171.086 (a)(4),(6); see also Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 268 (Tex. 1992). At issue in this proceeding is whether the trial court abused its discretion by permitting discovery on damage calculations and other potential defendants, instead of deciding the motion to compel arbitration. For the reasons below, we conclude the trial court should not have ordered pre-arbitration discovery, but rather should have decided the motion to compel arbitration. Because the discovery ordered here is overbroad and beyond the issues raised in the motion to compel, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering this discovery rather than ruling on the legal issues raised by the motion to compel. Accordingly, without hearing oral argument, we conditionally grant the writ and direct the trial court to vacate the discovery order and to rule on the motion to compel arbitration. Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(c). We are confident the trial court will comply, and our writ will issue only if it does not.<br /><br /><br /></span>WOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281586307952194922.post-48147959385954299292009-06-21T12:35:00.000-07:002009-07-05T15:01:01.663-07:00TRFRA: Barr v. City of Sinton (Tex 2009)NOT IN MY CITY: RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT GIVEN TEETH IN NIMBY DISPUTE: PASTER PREVAILS IN FIGHT TO HAVE HALFWAY HOUSE ZONED OUT OF THE WAY.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Barr-v-City-of-Sinton-Tex-2009-by-Hecht-zoning-regulation-religious-half-way-house-TRFRA-NIMBY.html"><strong>Barr v. City of Sinton</strong></a><strong>, (<a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2009-Supreme-Court-Decisions.html">Tex. 2009</a>)</strong><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">No. 06-0074 (Tex. Jun. 19, 2009)(</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Hecht-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Nathan-Hecht.html"><span style="font-size:78%;">Hecht</span></a><span style="font-size:78%;">) (Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TRFRA) enforced in local NIMBY dispute over halfway house for former prisoners run by pastor) </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">PASTOR RICK BARR AND PHILEMON HOMES, INC. v. CITY OF SINTON; from San Patricio County; 13th district (13-03-00727-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 11-23-05)motion to take judicial notice granted The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court. Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court.</span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;color:#000099;"><strong>EXCERPTS FROM THE <a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jun/060074.pdf">PROFUSELY FOOT-NOTED 30-PAGE OPINION</a> BY <a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Hecht-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Nathan-Hecht.html">JUSTICE NATHAN HECHT</a>:</strong></span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"></span><span style="font-size:78%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">The Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TRFRA) provides that “a government agency may not substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion [unless it] demonstrates that the application of the burden to the person . . . is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest [and] is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.”1 TRFRA does not immunize religious conduct from government regulation; it requires the government to tread carefully and lightly when its actions substantially burden religious exercise. In this case, a city resident, as part of a religious ministry, offered men recently released from prison free housing and religious instruction in two homes he owned. In response, the city passed a zoning ordinance that not only precluded the use of the homes for that purpose but effectively banned the ministry from the city. The trial court found that the city had not violated TRFRA, and the court of appeals affirmed.2 We reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.</span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">* * *</span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">None of the arguments made by the City or the court of appeals supports the assertion that zoning ordinances are exempt from TRFRA.</span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">* * * </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">Ordinance 1999-02 prohibited Barr from operating his halfway house ministry in the two homes he owned adjacent his supporting church, and the city manager testified that it was “a fair statement” that alternate locations were “probably . . . minimal” and “possibly” “pretty close to nonexistent”. The court of appeals stated that “there is nothing in the ordinance that precludes Barr from providing his religious ministry to parolees and probationers, from providing instruction, counsel, and helpful assistance in other facilities in Sinton, or from housing these persons outside the City and providing his religious ministry to them there.”75 But there is no evidence of any alternate location in the City of Sinton where the ordinance would have allowed Barr’s ministry to operate, or of possible locations outside the city. Moreover, while evidence of alternatives is certainly relevant to the issue whether zoning restrictions substantially burden free religious exercise, evidence of some possible alternative, irrespective of the difficulties presented, does not, standing alone, disprove substantial burden.76 In a related context, the Supreme Court has observed that “one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place.”77 As a practical matter, the ordinance ended Barr’s ministry, as the City Council surely knew it would.78 We therefore have no hesitation in concluding that Ordinance 1999-02 substantially burdened Barr’s ministry. The trial court’s unexplained finding to the contrary has no support in the evidence.</span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">* * * </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">Although TRFRA places the burden of proving a substantial burden on the claimant, it places the burden of proving a compelling state interest on the government. </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">* * * </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">The City’s failure to establish a compelling interest in this case in no way suggests that the government never has a compelling interest in zoning for religious use of property or in regulating halfway houses operated for religious purposes.112 TRFRA guarantees a process, not a result. The City’s principal position in this case has been that it is exempt from TRFRA. We do not hold that the City could not have satisfied TRFRA; we hold only that it failed to do so.</span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">* * * </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">Finally, TRFRA requires that even when the government acts in furtherance of a compelling interest, it must show that it used the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. The City has made no effort to show that it complied with this requirement. Ordinance 1999-02 is very broad. If as the city manager testified, locations in the City of Sinton more than 1,000 feet from a residential area, school, park, recreational area, or church are “pretty close to nonexistent”, the ordinance effectively prohibits any private “residential facility . . . operated for the purpose of housing persons . . . convicted of misdemeanors . . . within one . . . year after having been released from confinement in any penal institution” inside the city limits. Read literally, this would prohibit a Sinton resident from leasing a room to someone within a year of his having been jailed for twice driving with an invalid license.113 Such restrictions are certainly not the least restrictive means of insuring that religiously operated halfway houses do not jeopardize children’s safety and residents’ wellbeing.</span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">* * *</span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">We conclude, based on the record before us, that Ordinance 1999-02, as applied to Barr’s ministry, violates TRFRA. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. Because the trial court did not reach the issues of appropriate injunctive relief, actual damages, and attorney fees, we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"></span>WOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1281586307952194922.post-86216612100249483332009-06-21T11:42:00.000-07:002009-06-21T12:11:40.781-07:00PUNITIVE DAMAGES (CAP) SEQUEL: Columbia Medical Center v. Hogue III (Tex. 2009)<span style="font-size:85%;color:#663366;">3 OF 9 SUPREMES ISSUE DISSENT TO CLARIFY THAT THE MANDATE NEEDS NO CLARIFICATION IN RARE CASE IN WHICH SUPREME COURT UPHELD EXEMPLARY DAMAGES IN MED-MAL SUIT - PARTIES HAD A DISPUTE ABOUT HOW TO READ THE MANDATE AND RECALCULATE DAMAGES FOLLOWING DELETION OF LOSS-OF-INHERITANCE DAMAGES BY THE SUPREME COURT.</span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/09-Columbia-Med-Ctr-of-Las-Colinas-v-Hogue-III-Tex-2009-by-Wainwright-dispute-as-to-mandate.html"><strong><span style="font-size:85%;">Columbia Medical Center of Law Colinas, Inc. v. Hogue</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:85%;">, (</span></strong><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2009-Supreme-Court-Decisions.html"><strong><span style="font-size:85%;">Tex. 2009</span></strong></a><strong><span style="font-size:85%;">)</span></strong><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">No. 04-0575 (Tex. Jun 17, 2009) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Wainwright-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Dale-Wainwright.html"><span style="font-size:78%;">Wainwright</span></a><span style="font-size:78%;">) (dissenting from majority's denial of petitioner's motion for clarification of the mandate) </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"><strong>FROM THE DISSENTING OPINION:</strong> Our original opinion, issued August 29, 2008, reversed $306,393 awarded as damages to the Hogues for loss of inheritance and affirmed the award of exemplary damages, capped by section 41.008 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. 271 S.W.3d at 255, 257. The other amounts awarded as actual damages were not changed. We held that the evidence submitted to the jury was legally insufficient to support an award of damages for loss of inheritance. Id. at 255. However, the loss of inheritance damages had been included as economic damages in the trial court’s judgment to calculate the maximum amount of punitive damages that could be awarded under the applicable statutory cap. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.008(b). Under chapter 41, punitive damages were capped at (1) two times any amount of economic damages plus (2) an amount equal to any noneconomic damages not exceeding $750,000. Id.2 </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">After the Court issued its opinion and judgment, Columbia Medical filed a motion for rehearing, which was denied January 16, 2009. That same day, we issued the mandate. Thirteen days later Columbia Medical issued a wire transfer to the trust account for the Hogues’ counsel in the amount of $8,906,385.50, which included payment of compensatory damages, punitive damages, and post-judgment interest at a ten percent rate, compounded annually. Columbia Medical’s tender had reduced the amount of damages by properly deducting the loss of inheritance damages from the compensatory damages and adjusting the exemplary damages award accordingly. In other words, Columbia Medical did not include $612,786—two times the amount awarded as loss of inheritance damages—in calculating the exemplary damages cap. The Hogues refused the tender.</span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">* * * </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">The opinion and judgment are clear: The Hogues are not entitled to loss of inheritance damages, either directly or indirectly through an increase of the exemplary damages cap. By denying this motion, the Court is leaving the parties in a quandary. It is not denying that Columbia Medical’s position on the punitive damages cap is correct (which it undisputably is). If the Hogues continue to press the issue, at best the failure to address the motion to clarify will force Columbia Medical to continue to litigate this dispute, perhaps by filing a new action, having to pay post-judgment interest that continues to accrue, incurring additional attorneys’ fees, and expending time over a matter we settled nearly a year ago. It is possible that this matter will come before the Court again. At worst, the Court’s inaction today could result in a more than $612,000 windfall directly contrary to our opinion.</span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER OF LAS COLINAS, INC. D/B/A LAS COLINAS MEDICAL CENTER v. ATHENA HOGUE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT HOGUE, JR., DECEASED, CHRISTOPHER HOGUE, AND ROBERT HOGUE, III; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-03-00279-CV, 132 SW3d 671, 04-13-04) petitioner's motion to clarify mandate denied </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">Justice Wainwright delivered an opinion, in which Justice Hecht and Justice Brister joined, dissenting to the denial.</span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;color:#663366;"><strong>LINKS TO PRIOR OPINIONS:</strong></span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"><strong>Corrected Opinion Released Jan. 16, 2009:</strong> </span><br /><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jan/040575s.htm"><span style="font-size:78%;">Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Inc.</span></a><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2009/jan/040575s.htm"><span style="font-size:78%;"> v. Hogue</span></a><span style="font-size:78%;">, No. 04-0575 (Tex. 2009)(substituted corrected opinion) (reh'g denied) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2008-Medical-Malpractice-Rulings-HCLC-Sufficiency-of-Expert-Report-Interlocutory-Appeal.html"><span style="font-size:78%;">medical malpractice</span></a><span style="font-size:78%;">, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-gross-negligence.html"><span style="font-size:78%;">gross negligence</span></a><span style="font-size:78%;">, </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/law-punitive-damages.html"><span style="font-size:78%;">punitive damages</span></a><span style="font-size:78%;">) </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"></span><br /><strong><span style="font-size:78%;">Original Opinion Handed Down August 29, 2008: </span></strong><br /><a href="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2008/aug/040575.htm"><span style="font-size:78%;">Columbia Medical Center of Los Colinas v. Hogue</span></a><span style="font-size:78%;">, No. 04-0575 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008) (Wainwright) (</span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2008-Medical-Malpractice-Rulings-HCLC-Sufficiency-of-Expert-Report-Interlocutory-Appeal.html"><span style="font-size:78%;">HCLC</span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2008-Medical-Malpractice-Rulings-HCLC-Sufficiency-of-Expert-Report-Interlocutory-Appeal.html"><span style="font-size:78%;">, medical malpractice, damages for </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-2008-Medical-Malpractice-Rulings-HCLC-Sufficiency-of-Expert-Report-Interlocutory-Appeal.html"><span style="font-size:78%;">gross negligence</span></a><span style="font-size:78%;"> by hospital affirmed, contributory negligence, loss of inheritance damages, prejudgment interest, construction of the phrase "subject to appeal") </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"><strong>HOLDING</strong>: There is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that Columbia Medical acted with conscious indifference to an extreme risk of serious injury when it (1) elected to outsource echo services without a guaranteed response time while providing emergency services, (2) failed to communicate this limitation to its medical staff so they could consider other options to treat critical care patients, and (3) delayed obtaining the echo in spite of the serious risk to Hogue’s health.We hold that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s award of loss of inheritance damages.</span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER OF LAS COLINAS, INC. D/B/A LAS COLINAS MEDICAL CENTER v. ATHENA HOGUE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT HOGUE, JR., DECEASED, CHRISTOPHER HOGUE, AND ROBERT HOGUE, III; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-03-00279-CV, 132 SW3d 671, 04-13-04) The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment. </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/Tex-Wainwright-Opinions-Record-Texas-Supreme-Court-Justice-Dale-Wainwright.html"><span style="font-size:78%;">Justice Wainwright</span></a><span style="font-size:78%;"> delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice O'Neill, Justice Brister, Justice Medina, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined, and in Parts II-A, II-C, and II-D of which Justice Hecht and Justice Green joined. </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">Justice </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/08-Columbia-Med-Ctr-v-Hogue-Concurrence-by-Brister-opposing-piecemeal-trial-trifurcation.html"><span style="font-size:78%;">Brister </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/08-Columbia-Med-Ctr-v-Hogue-Concurrence-by-Brister-opposing-piecemeal-trial-trifurcation.html"><span style="font-size:78%;">opposed trifurcation of trial and </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/08-Columbia-Med-Ctr-v-Hogue-Concurrence-by-Brister-opposing-piecemeal-trial-trifurcation.html"><span style="font-size:78%;">delivered a concurring opinion</span></a><span style="font-size:78%;">, in which Justice Medina joined. </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">Justice </span><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/08-Columbia-Med-Ctr-v-Hogue-Dissent-by-Green-disagreeing-with-affirmance-of-gross-negligence-damages.html"><span style="font-size:78%;">Green </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/08-Columbia-Med-Ctr-v-Hogue-Dissent-by-Green-disagreeing-with-affirmance-of-gross-negligence-damages.html"><span style="font-size:78%;">would reverse gross negligence damages against hospital and </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/08-Columbia-Med-Ctr-v-Hogue-Dissent-by-Green-disagreeing-with-affirmance-of-gross-negligence-damages.html"><span style="font-size:78%;">delivered an opinion concurring in </span></a><a href="http://www.texas-opinions.com/08-Columbia-Med-Ctr-v-Hogue-Dissent-by-Green-disagreeing-with-affirmance-of-gross-negligence-damages.html"><span style="font-size:78%;">part and dissenting in part</span></a><span style="font-size:78%;">, in which Justice Hecht joined. </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"></span>WOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.com1