In this good Samaritan case, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing in part the order of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant in this wrongful death and survival action, holding that the court of appeals erred in reversing summary judgment for Defendant.At issue was whether Dawn Hancock had a duty to exercise reasonable care as to Jeffrey Landrum, who was crushed by a portable storage unit. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendant. The court of appeals reversed in part, ruling (1) because Hancock participated in the unloading of the storage unit, she undertook a duty to protect Landrum from dangers that an ordinarily prudent person could foresee were a likely result of the situation; and (2) a fact issue remained as to whether Dawn failed to continue to render Landrum assistance. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that any duty imposed on Dawn by undertaking to help Landrum ended when the unloading process was completed. View "Three Aces Towing, Inc. v. Landrum" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Tyler and dismissing this personal injury action arising under the Texas Tort Claims Act on the grounds that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, holding that the trial court's jurisdiction was secure.Plaintiff was allegedly injured when he was driving a truck for his employer and an improperly secured piece of lumber flew off a truck owned by the City entered the driver side window and struck Plaintiff in the head. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the City, concluding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because Plaintiff failed timely to provide the City with notice of his claim. View "Leach v. City of Tyler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court for a pioneering cardiovascular surgeon in this dispute between the surgeon and the hospital where he formerly worked, holding that the evidence was not legally sufficient to support the jury's award.Plaintiff and his professional association sued Defendant for engaging in a retaliatory "whisper campaign" against him after he left Defendant for a new rival hospital, alleging illegal restraint of trade (anticompetition claims), tortious interference with prospective business relations, defamation, and business disparagement. The jury rejected Plaintiff's anticompetition claims but found that Defendant had defamed Plaintiff and disparaged his professional association. Defendant appealed, arguing that no evidence supported the jury's defamation and disparagement findings. The court of appeals affirmed based on its interpretation of the jury charge. The Supreme Court reversed and rendered a take-nothing judgment for Defendant, holding that no evidence supported the jury's award in this case. View "Memorial Hermann Health System v. Gomez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied an emergency mandamus action sought by Republican Party candidates in the November 2022 general election to remove their Libertarian Party opponents for failure to pay a statutory filing fee, holding that the petition was untimely.The Supreme Court denied the Republican's petition asserting that the Texas Election Code requires exclusion of the Libertarian candidates from the ballot without resolving he merits of the parties' dispute because the petition did not comport with recent instruction that "invoking judicial authority in the election context requires unusual dispatch." The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the petition did not comport with recent instruction that "invoking judicial authority in the election context requires unusual dispatch." View "In re Self" on Justia Law

In this lawsuit affecting the parent-child relationship, the Supreme Court denied Petitioner's motion for rehearing and disapproved the court of appeals' holding that after the trial court has denied a party's demand for a jury trial the party must also object to that ruling to preserve the issue for appellate review.Petitioner sought conservatorship and possession of Kelly, the biological daughter of Respondents, and filed a written demand for a jury trial. The trial court denied the demand. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that Petitioner failed to preserve the jury issue for appellate review because he failed to object in the trial court. The Supreme Court affirmed on other grounds, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Petitioner's jury demand was untimely; but (2) the court of appeals erred in its ruling on preservation. View "Bramlette Holland Browder v. Moree" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court dismissing the claims brought by the Mexican American Legislative Caucus (MALC) and the claim brought by a group of plaintiffs referred to as the Gutierrez Plaintiffs that the recently enacted laws reapportioning Texas's legislative districts violate Tex. Const. art. III, 26, holding that the trial court erred in part.MALC and the Gutierrez Plaintiffs sued Defendants - various State officials - claiming that the laws at issue violated Article III, Sections 26 and 28. Defendants filed pleas to the jurisdiction, which the trial court largely denied. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded the case to the trial court, holding (1) MALC lacked associational standing to pursue its claims; (2) at least one of the Gutierrez Plaintiffs had standing to pursue each claim a proper defendant, but not the State; (3) the Gutierrez Plaintiffs' section 26 was not barred by sovereign immunity, but the section 28 claim was; and (4) the Gutierrez Plaintiffs should have the opportunity to replead their section 26 claim against a proper defendant. View "Abbott v. Mexican American Legislative Caucus" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court permanently enjoining the Texas Department of State Health Services from enforcing a new Texas law that prohibited the processing and manufacturing of smokable hemp products, holding that Plaintiffs were not entitled to relief.In their complaint, Plaintiffs - Texas-based entities that manufacture, process, distribute, and sell hemp products - argued that Tex. Const. art. I, 19 invalidated the challenged law and sought an injunction prohibiting Defendant from enforcing the law. The trial court declared that Tex. Health & Safety Code 443.202(4) violated the Texas Constitution and that 25 Tex. Admin. Code 300.104 was invalid in its entirety and enjoined Defendant from enforcing the statute or the rule. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiffs' complaints did not assert the deprivation of an interest substantively protected by the Texas Constitution's due course clause. View "Texas Department of State Health Services v. Crown Distributing LLC" on Justia Law

In this eminent domain case brought in a county court at law the Supreme Court held that the county court correctly concluded that counterclaims challenging the authority to condemn and seek damages in excess of the amount-in-controversy cap on the court's additional jurisdiction do not require a transfer to the district court.Plaintiff sued Defendant in the Walker County Court at Law to condemn a pipeline easement across Defendant's property. Defendant filed counterclaims and sought to transfer them to the district court, arguing that they exceeded the county court's jurisdictional limit. The county court at law denied Defendant's motion to transfer. Defendant filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, which the court of appeals granted. The Supreme Court conditionally granted Plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandamus and ordered the appeals court to vacate its conditional writ, holding that Defendant's counterclaims could be fully adjudicated by the county court at law, which retained jurisdiction over the entire case. View "In re Breviloba, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the ruling of the trial court that two private entities behind a high-speed rail between Houston and Dallas did not qualify as either railroad companies or interurban electric railway companies entitled to eminent-domain authority, holding that the entities had eminent-domain power as interurban electric railway companies.The owner of real property located along the proposed railway route sought a declaratory judgment that the two private entities lacked eminent-domain authority. The trial court granted summary judgment for the landowner. The court of appeals reversed, determining that the entities had eminent-domain power as both railroad companies and interurban electric railway companies. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the private entities had eminent-domain authority under Chapter 131 of the Texas Transportation Code. View "Miles v. Texas Central Railroad & Infrastructure, Inc." on Justia Law

In this workplace injury case, the Supreme Court conditionally granted YRC, Inc.'s petition for writ of mandamus and directed the trial court to vacate its order denying YRC's motion for leave to designate a responsible third party and to grant the motion, holding that YMC's motion was timely, contrary to the trial court's conclusion.Defendants in this case sought to designate Plaintiff's employer as a responsible party sixty-two days before the suit's third trial setting and more than five years the injury. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that it was untimely. The court of appeals denied mandamus relief. The Supreme Court conditionally granted mandamus relief, holding (1) the motion was timely filed and pleaded sufficient facts; and (2) there was no applicable limitations period for Plaintiff to join the third-party employer as a defendant on tort cause of action because workers' compensation was his exclusive remedy. View "In re YRC Inc." on Justia Law