A nuisance lawsuit was brought by neighbors against two poultry farms located on a single tract of rural land in Henderson County, southeast of Dallas. The neighbors claimed that the odors from the farms were a nuisance, causing them discomfort and annoyance. A jury found that the odors were a temporary nuisance and the trial court granted permanent injunctive relief that effectively shut down the farms. The farm owners and operators appealed, challenging the injunction on three grounds: whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding imminent harm; whether equitable relief was unavailable because damages provide an adequate remedy; and whether the scope of the injunction is overly broad.The Supreme Court of Texas upheld the trial court’s authority to grant an injunction, rejecting the first two challenges. However, the court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in crafting the scope of the injunction, which was broader than necessary to abate the nuisance. The court therefore reversed in part and remanded for the trial court to modify the scope of injunctive relief. View "HUYNH v. BLANCHARD" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed a case involving the State of Texas, Ken Paxton in his official capacity as Attorney General of Texas, the Texas Medical Board, and Stephen Brint Carlton in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Medical Board (collectively, the State) against a group of women and physicians. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Texas's abortion laws, specifically the Human Life Protection Act, which generally prohibits performing an abortion except when a pregnant woman has a life-threatening physical condition that poses a risk of death or serious physical impairment unless an abortion is performed.The case reached the Supreme Court of Texas as a direct appeal from a temporary injunction issued by the 353rd District Court, Travis County, Texas, which halted the enforcement of Texas's abortion laws in various circumstances. The State contested the injunction, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing, the State had sovereign immunity, and the current Texas law permitting life-saving abortion was not more limiting than the Texas Constitution permits.The Supreme Court of Texas held that one of the plaintiffs, Dr. Damla Karsan, had standing to challenge the Attorney General’s enforcement of the Human Life Protection Act against her. The court also concluded that the Declaratory Judgments Act waives the State’s immunity for a claim that a statute violates the state constitution. The court further clarified that under the Human Life Protection Act, a woman with a life-threatening physical condition and her physician have the legal authority to proceed with an abortion to save the woman’s life or major bodily function, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment and with the woman’s informed consent. The court concluded that Dr. Karsan had not demonstrated that the part of the Human Life Protection Act that permits life-saving abortion is narrower than the Texas Constitution allows. As a result, the court vacated the lower court's injunction order. View "State v. Zurawski" on Justia Law

The case involves Rachel Goldstein and James Sabatino, who had a two-year relationship in Massachusetts that ended in 2017. In March 2020, Sabatino began contacting Goldstein, informing her that he had found sexually explicit photos and conversations on a cell phone she had loaned him during their relationship. Despite Goldstein's request for Sabatino to return the phone, he refused. Goldstein became concerned that Sabatino would use these texts and images to control her and ruin her career. In May 2020, a Massachusetts court granted Goldstein a protective order against Sabatino, which he violated, leading to his arrest. In June, the Massachusetts court extended the protective order for another six months. The same month, Goldstein moved to Harris County, Texas. While the Massachusetts protective order was still in effect, Sabatino began filing small-claims lawsuits in Massachusetts against Goldstein. In October 2020, Goldstein filed an application for a protective order against Sabatino in Harris County.The district court in Harris County issued a protective order against Sabatino, a Massachusetts resident, based on conduct that occurred entirely within Massachusetts. Sabatino appealed, challenging the district court's personal jurisdiction over him and its subject matter jurisdiction over the proceeding. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas vacated the order and dismissed the case, holding that the district court lacked territorial jurisdiction—a purportedly nonwaivable, third jurisdictional requirement. The court of appeals did not address personal jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed with the court of appeals’ territorial jurisdiction analysis, but agreed with Sabatino that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. The court held that territorial jurisdiction is not an independent jurisdictional requirement in Chapter 7B protective-order proceedings. The court also held that Sabatino did not enter a general appearance, and thus did not waive his challenge to the district court's personal jurisdiction. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment vacating the protective order and dismissing the case. View "GOLDSTEIN v. SABATINO" on Justia Law

The case involves Sunny Letot, who owned a vintage Mercedes-Benz sedan that was rear-ended by a driver insured by USAA Casualty Insurance Company. USAA determined that the cost of repair exceeded the car's pre-collision value and deemed it a "total loss" or "salvage." USAA sent Letot checks to cover the car’s pre-collision value and eight days of lost use. Without waiting for Letot to accept its offer, USAA reported to the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) that Letot’s car was salvage. Letot disagreed with USAA’s determinations and never cashed its proffered checks. She claims that USAA’s premature filing led TxDOT to invalidate her vehicle’s regular title, which prevented her from using or selling her sedan. Letot argued that USAA’s actions constituted conversion of her car.The district court certified a class of claimants whose cars USAA had deemed salvage and about whom USAA filed a report within three days of sending the claimant a check for the salvage vehicle. The class sought injunctive relief and damages. The court of appeals affirmed the class certification.The Supreme Court of Texas concluded that class certification was impermissible in this case. The court found that neither Letot nor any class member had standing to pursue injunctive relief, so Letot could not litigate an individual claim for an injunction, much less represent a class. Letot did, however, have standing to seek damages. But as to damages, the certified class did not satisfy the requirements of predominance or typicality. The court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded the case to the trial court to resolve Letot’s individual claim. View "USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. LETOT" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Anne Carl and related parties (the royalty holders) and Hilcorp Energy Company (the producer) over the calculation of royalties from a mineral lease. The lease stipulates that royalties are to be calculated based on the market value of the minerals "at the well," meaning before any post-production efforts have increased their value. However, the minerals are often not sold until after these efforts have taken place, resulting in a higher sale price. To account for this disparity, the producer deducted the proportionate share of post-production costs from the royalty payment, a method known as the "workback method." The royalty holders were dissatisfied with this reduced payment and sued, arguing that the lease required payment of a royalty on all gas produced from the well.The case was initially heard in a federal district court, which sided with the producer. The court found that the lease did indeed convey an "at-the-well" royalty, meaning the royalty holders were obligated to share proportionately in the post-production costs. The court also found no fault with the producer's method of accounting for these costs, which involved using some of the gas produced from the well to power post-production activities conducted off the lease. The value of this gas was considered a post-production cost and was therefore deducted from the total volume of gas used to calculate the royalty.The case was then certified to the Supreme Court of Texas, which affirmed the lower court's decision. The court agreed with the producer's interpretation of the lease and found that the royalty holders, as holders of an "at-the-well" royalty, were indeed obligated to bear their usual share of post-production costs. The court also found that the producer's method of accounting for these costs was permissible. The court concluded that the royalty holders were not shortchanged and that the producer's calculation was one acceptable way to convert the downstream sales price into an at-the-well market value on which to pay the royalty, as required by the lease. View "CARL v. HILCORP ENERGY COMPANY" on Justia Law

Westwood Motorcars, LLC leased commercial property in Dallas to operate an automobile dealership. The lease was set to expire in 2013, but an addendum allowed Westwood to extend the lease for two additional 24-month terms. In 2015, ownership of the property changed hands and Virtuolotry, LLC became the new landlord. Westwood sought to exercise its option to extend the lease for the second additional term, but Virtuolotry’s lawyers refused, asserting that Westwood had breached the lease in numerous ways. Amidst this dispute, Westwood claimed that Virtuolotry and its manager, Richard Boyd, harassed Westwood at the premises, interfering with its business operations. Westwood sued Virtuolotry in district court, seeking a declaratory judgment that it had not breached the lease and that it had properly extended the lease for another two years. Virtuolotry sued in justice court to evict Westwood for unpaid rent, lease violations, and holding over unlawfully.The justice court ruled in favor of Virtuolotry, awarding it "possession only." Westwood appealed the judgment to the county court at law. However, a few weeks before the trial date, Westwood formally withdrew its appeal in county court, and the county court entered a “stipulate[d] and agree[d]” judgment ordering “that possession of the Premises is awarded” to Virtuolotry. Westwood fully vacated the property, but continued its pending suit in district court, adding claims for breach of contract (against Virtuolotry) and constructive eviction (against Virtuolotry and Boyd). The district court ruled in favor of Westwood, awarding damages and attorney’s fees.Virtuolotry and Boyd appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the district court's decision, ruling that by agreeing to the eviction-suit judgment in county court, Westwood “voluntarily abandoned the premises” and thus “extinguish[ed] any claim for damages.” Westwood then petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for review.The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' decision, ruling that the court of appeals erred by giving a judgment of possession from a court of limited jurisdiction preclusive effect over Westwood’s claim for damages in district court. The Supreme Court of Texas held that Westwood’s agreement to entry of the county-court judgment cannot reflect assent to anything more than what that judgment resolves—i.e., who receives immediate possession of the property. The court remanded the case to the court of appeals for further proceedings. View "WESTWOOD MOTORCARS, LLC v. VIRTUOLOTRY, LLC" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over the interpretation of an assignment of mineral rights. In 1987, Shell Western E&P, Inc. sold a large bundle of Texas oil-and-gas properties to the predecessor of Citation 2002 Investment LLC. The assignment included an exhibit that listed the properties being transferred, some of which included depth specifications. In 1997, Shell purported to assign all its interests in the same leases to Occidental Permian’s predecessor. Occidental claimed that Shell had reserved to itself interests beyond the depth specifications of the 1987 assignment. Citation, however, claimed that it received the entirety of Shell’s leasehold interests in the 1987 assignment.The trial court granted Occidental’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the depth-specified tracts listed in the exhibit reserved to Shell the mineral-estate depths beyond the notations. Citation appealed, and the court of appeals reversed, holding that the 1987 assignment unambiguously conveyed the entirety of Shell’s interests in the leasehold estates without reserving portions of those interests to Shell.The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals' decision. The court held that the disputed assignment unambiguously conveyed all right, title, and interest that Shell owned in the leasehold estates listed in the exhibit, without reserving portions of those interests to itself through further notations about specific tracts within those estates. The court reasoned that the assignment's broad granting language, coupled with the absence of explicit reservation language, indicated that the entirety of the leasehold interests were conveyed. The court also noted that the depth specifications in the exhibit served a concrete purpose of providing notice of depth-specific third-party interests that continue after the leasehold estates are assigned. View "OCCIDENTAL PERMIAN, LTD. v. CITATION 2002 INVESTMENT LLC" on Justia Law

Mark and Birgit Self owned a tract of rural land that adjoined a portion of Farm-to-Market Road 677 in Montague County, Texas. The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) had a right-of-way easement that reached fifty feet from the centerline of the road in each direction, which burdened part of the Selfs’ property. As part of a highway maintenance project, TxDOT contracted with T.F.R. Enterprises, Inc. (TFR) to remove brush and trees from the right-of-way. TFR subcontracted with Lyellco Inc. to remove the trees. Following TxDOT’s instruction to TFR to “clear everything between the fences,” Lyellco workers cut all trees up to the Selfs’ fence line, including trees that were outside the State’s right-of-way easement. The Selfs sued TxDOT for negligence and inverse condemnation.The trial court denied TxDOT’s plea to the jurisdiction, asserting immunity from both causes of action. On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that there was a fact issue on whether the Texas Tort Claims Act waived immunity for the negligence cause of action, but reversed the trial court’s judgment on the cause of action for inverse condemnation, holding there was no evidence that TxDOT intentionally destroyed the Selfs’ property.The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed with the court of appeals. It held that the Selfs had not shown either that the subcontractor’s employees were in TxDOT’s paid service or that other TxDOT employees operated or used the motor-driven equipment that cut down the trees, as required to waive immunity under the Tort Claims Act. Therefore, the negligence cause of action was dismissed. However, regarding inverse condemnation, the court found that the Selfs had alleged and offered evidence that TxDOT intentionally directed the destruction of the trees as part of clearing the right-of-way for public use. Therefore, the cause of action for inverse condemnation was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. SELF" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between a lawyer, George Fleming, and his former clients, referred to as the "Wilson plaintiffs". Fleming had represented over 8,000 plaintiffs in a mass-tort action against the manufacturer of a diet pill known as "fen-phen". The Wilson plaintiffs are about 4,000 of Fleming’s former clients. Fleming had spent roughly $20 million to medically screen over 40,000 potential claimants, about 20% of whom became his clients. In 2006, Fleming settled the case for $339 million and reimbursed himself for the costs of the screenings by deducting that amount from the settlement funds. He charged his clients not just for their own medical-screening costs but also for those of approximately 32,000 people who never became his clients and who did not participate in the underlying case. This financial choice led to further litigation, with Fleming as the defendant in various actions brought by his former clients.In the lower courts, Fleming successfully opposed a motion for class certification in a federal court case brought by two of his former clients, arguing that the claims of his former clients were not sufficiently common for aggregate treatment. After the denial of class certification, another group of about 650 former clients sued Fleming for breaches of contract and fiduciary duty. Following a verdict against Fleming in this case, the Wilson plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the ground that the verdict collaterally estopped Fleming from contesting the merits of their claims against him. Fleming successfully opposed that motion, arguing that the issues presented by the other plaintiffs were not identical to those of the Wilson plaintiffs. The trial court denied the Wilson plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment without explanation. Later, Fleming moved for summary judgment, asserting defensive collateral estoppel against the Wilson plaintiffs.The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals, but for a different reason. The court concluded that Fleming was judicially estopped from establishing an essential component of his summary-judgment motion. The court found that Fleming's assertions in prior litigation clearly and unequivocally contradicted his summary-judgment motion’s assertions regarding whether the Wilson plaintiffs’ legal and factual positions were materially identical to those of the other plaintiffs. The court held that Fleming was estopped from asserting that the thousands of remaining plaintiffs’ claims were materially indistinguishable. View "FLEMING v. WILSON" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association (TWIA) and Stephen Pruski, a policyholder. TWIA is a quasi-governmental body that provides windstorm and hail insurance to property owners in the coastal region of Texas who cannot get this coverage in the regular market due to the risk of catastrophic hurricanes. Pruski filed two claims with TWIA after Hurricane Harvey and a subsequent storm, and TWIA partially accepted and partially denied coverage for both claims. Pruski then filed a lawsuit in Nueces County District Court, seeking damages for TWIA’s alleged improper denial of coverage. The case was assigned to a judge who was not appointed by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), as required by Texas Insurance Code Section 2210.575(e).The case was initially heard in the Nueces County District Court, where TWIA filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the damages for which Pruski sought recovery were not covered by his policy as a matter of law. The district court granted the motion and rendered a final, take-nothing judgment for TWIA. Pruski appealed, arguing that the trial judge was not qualified to render judgment because she had not been appointed by the MDL panel. The court of appeals reversed the district court's judgment, holding that a trial judge who is not appointed by the MDL panel is “without authority to render judgment” in a suit under Chapter 2210.The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed with the court of appeals' interpretation of the statute. The court held that while the requirement for a judge to be appointed by the MDL panel is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional. Therefore, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the suit, even though the presiding judge was not appointed by the MDL panel. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded the case to that court for further proceedings. View "TEXAS WINDSTORM INSURANCE ASSOCIATION v. PRUSKI" on Justia Law