TxDOT v. York, No. 07-0743 (Tex. 2008)(per curiam)
(TTCA, dangerous road conditions, special defect) (TTCA, Texas Tort Claims Act suit, exception to sovereign immunity, dangerous road conditions, loose gravel, special defect, premises defect)
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. JIMMY DON YORK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF REBECCA YORK, DECEASED AND JAMES R. BODIFORD, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF REBECCA YORK, TONYA BODIFORD, AND SHIRLEY FOWLER; from Robertson County; 10th district (10-06-00210-CV, 234 SW3d 212, 08-08-07)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.Per Curiam Opinion
Autozone, Inc. v. Reyes, No. 07-0773 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam) (employment litigation) (age discrimination suit, judgment on jury verdict for employee reversed, take-nothing judgment rendered) AUTOZONE, INC. v. SALVADOR REYES; from Cameron County; 13th district (13-03-00338-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 12-29-06)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
In Re Global Santa Fe Corp., No. 07-0040 (Tex. 2008) (Willett) (mandamus granted) (silica litigation, Jones Act preemption issues)
IN RE GLOBALSANTAFE CORPORATION; from Harris County; 14th district (14-06-00625-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 12-19-06)The Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Re G.E. Co., No. 07-0195 (Tex. Dec. 5, 2008) (Phil Johnson) (forum non conveniens mandamus granted, asbestos suit)
IN RE GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.; from Harris County; 1st district (01-06-01105-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 03-02-07)stay order issued March 20, 2007, liftedThe Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court.(Justice O'Neill not sitting)
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
When indemnity hinges on choice of law | Texas Supreme Court remands case for application of LA law
Contractual Choice of Law: Case remanded for retrial under Louisiana law. In prior mandamus proceeding Court granted insurer opportunity to participate as nonparty in appeal.
Sonat Exploration Co. v. Cudd Pressure Control, Inc.
No. 06-0979 (Tex. Nov. 21, 2008) (Brister)(choice of law where no express provision in the contract applied to the oilfield accident in Louisiana, duty to indemnify, Rule 11 Agreement, intervention of insurer in appeal)
SONAT EXPLORATION COMPANY v. CUDD PRESSURE CONTROL, INC.; from Harrison County; 6th district (06-03-00077-CV, 202 SW3d 901, 09-26-06) 2 petitions The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment, but on different grounds. Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court.
FROM THE OPINION: This case returns to us after we ordered that an insurer be allowed to argue on appeal a choice-of-law issue that its insured had waived.[1] The court of appeals sustained the insurer’s point, finding that Louisiana law applied because it was the place the contract was performed and was impliedly chosen by the parties. While we disagree with those reasons, we agree with the court’s ultimate conclusion that Louisiana law applies and that remand is required. Accordingly, we affirm.
Prior mandamus case: In re Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 184 S.W.3d 718 (Tex. 2006)("We hold that under the unusual circumstances this case presents, Lumbermens is entitled to invoke the virtual-representation doctrine to raise on appeal the choice-of-law issue its insured abandoned in order to settle uninsured claims in another suit, and the court of appeals abused its discretion in holding otherwise. Accordingly, we conditionally grant the writ of mandamus and direct the court of appeals to permit Lumbermens’ participation to contest the trial court’s choice-of-law ruling. The writ will issue only if the court fails to do so.")
Sonat Exploration Co. v. Cudd Pressure Control, Inc.
No. 06-0979 (Tex. Nov. 21, 2008) (Brister)(choice of law where no express provision in the contract applied to the oilfield accident in Louisiana, duty to indemnify, Rule 11 Agreement, intervention of insurer in appeal)
SONAT EXPLORATION COMPANY v. CUDD PRESSURE CONTROL, INC.; from Harrison County; 6th district (06-03-00077-CV, 202 SW3d 901, 09-26-06) 2 petitions The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment, but on different grounds. Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court.
FROM THE OPINION: This case returns to us after we ordered that an insurer be allowed to argue on appeal a choice-of-law issue that its insured had waived.[1] The court of appeals sustained the insurer’s point, finding that Louisiana law applied because it was the place the contract was performed and was impliedly chosen by the parties. While we disagree with those reasons, we agree with the court’s ultimate conclusion that Louisiana law applies and that remand is required. Accordingly, we affirm.
Prior mandamus case: In re Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 184 S.W.3d 718 (Tex. 2006)("We hold that under the unusual circumstances this case presents, Lumbermens is entitled to invoke the virtual-representation doctrine to raise on appeal the choice-of-law issue its insured abandoned in order to settle uninsured claims in another suit, and the court of appeals abused its discretion in holding otherwise. Accordingly, we conditionally grant the writ of mandamus and direct the court of appeals to permit Lumbermens’ participation to contest the trial court’s choice-of-law ruling. The writ will issue only if the court fails to do so.")
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
