Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Michael and Laura McIntyre, along with their children that were homeschooled, were criminally charged with contributing to truancy and failure to attend school. The McIntyres sued the District and its attendance officer, alleging that Defendants violated the McIntyres’ rights under both the Texas Constitution and United States Constitution. The District filed pleas, exceptions, and motions arguing that the McIntyres failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. The attendance officer invoked qualified immunity. The trial court denied relief. The court of appeals reversed in part and (1) dismissed the McIntyres’ state-law claims against the District and its attendance officer for the McIntyres’ failure to “exhaust their administrative remedies, and (2) dismissed the federal-law claims against the attendance officer based on qualified immunity. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals to the extent it dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims based on qualified immunity; but (2) reversed the judgment insofar as it dismissed the McIntyres’ claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, holding the Texas Education Code does not require administrative appeals when a person is allegedly aggrieved by violations of laws other than the state’s school laws, such as the state and federal Constitutions. View "McIntyre v. El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, about 400 homeowners whose homes were located in the upper White Oak Bayou watershed of Harris County, filed suit against the County, asserting a takings cause of action. Plaintiffs claim that the flooding of their homes was caused by the County’s approval of “unmitigated” upstream development, combined with a failure to fully implement the Pate Plan, a flood-control plan. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of the County's motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that, assuming all disputed facts in favor of the homeowners, the record is clear that the County never harbored a desire to cause flooding anywhere. In this case, assuming that a cause of the flooding was the affirmative act of approving private development, there indisputably were other causes: heavy rainfall, and, according to the homeowners themselves, the failure to fully implement the flood-control measures of the Pate Plan. The court concluded that the confluence of these circumstances does not give rise to a takings claim. Accordingly, the court reversed and rendered judgment dismissing the case. View "Harris Cnty. Flood Control Dist. v. Kerr" on Justia Law

The Texas Optometry Act prohibits commercial retailers of ophthalmic goods from attempting to control the practice of optometry; authorizes the Optometry Board and the Attorney General to sue a violator for a civil penalty; and provides that “[a] person injured as a result of a violation . . . is entitled to the remedies. In 1992, Wal-Mart opened “Vision Centers” in its Texas retail stores, selling ophthalmic goods. Wal-Mart leased office space to optometrists. A typical lease required the optometrist to keep the office open at least 45 hours per week or pay liquidated damages. In 1995, the Board advised Wal-Mart that the requirement violated the Act. Wal-Mart dropped the requirement and changed its lease form, allowing the optometrist to insert hours of operation. In 1998, the Board opined that any commercial lease referencing an optometrist’s hours violated the Act; in 2003, the Board notified Wal-Mart that it violated the Act by informing optometrists that customers were requesting longer hours. Optometrists sued, alleging that during lease negotiations, Wal-Mart indicated what hours they should include in the lease and that they were pressured to work longer hours. They did not claim actual harm. A jury awarded civil penalties and attorney fees. The Fifth Circuit certified the question of whether such civil penalties, when sought by a private person, are exemplary damages limited by the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 41. The Texas Supreme Court responded in the affirmative, noting that “the certified questions assume, perhaps incorrectly, that the Act authorizes recovery of civil penalties by a private person, rather than only by the Board or the Attorney General.” View "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Forte" on Justia Law

Shortly after the City of Houston enacted a drainage-free ordinance, Houston Belt & Terminal Railway, BNSF Railway, and Union Pacific Railway (collectively, the Railroads) received notices of proposed charges for their properties in Houston. Daniel Krueger, the City’s Director of Public Works and Engineering, determined that the properties were “benefitted” and thus subject to drainage charges and determined that the Railroads should pay roughly $3 million based on their benefitted properties’ “impervious surface” area. The Railroads filed suit against the City and Krueger in his official capacity, alleging ultra vires claims against Krueger and seeking prospective injunctive relief. The trial court sustained the City’s plea to the jurisdiction as to the Railroads’ ultra vires claims based on governmental immunity. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding that the Railroads pleaded a viable ultra vires claim challenging Krueger’s determination that their properties were benefitted but that the railroads’ challenge to Krueger’s “impervious surface” determination did not fall within the ultra vires exception. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the Railroads’ pleadings affirmatively alleged that Krueger acted “without legal authority” in both his “benefitted property” and “impervious surface” determinations, and thus the pleadings alleged viable ultra claims as to each. View "Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

In 2008, the Railroad Commission of Texas issued orders to plug a number of inactive offshore wells operated in the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf Energy Exploration Corporation was the lessee of the offshore area that included one of wells subject to the plugging order. The Commission and Gulf Energy reached an agreement that the Commissioner would delay plugging this well. A few months later Gulf Energy discovered that the well was plugged. Gulf Energy sued the Commission with legislative permission. The jury returned a favorable verdict on Gulf Energy’s negligence and breach-of-contract claims. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court erred in refusing to submit a jury question on a statutory good-faith defense; and (2) a question of fact existed as to whether the Commission and Gulf Energy entered into a binding contract before the well was plugged. Remanded for a new trial. View "R.R. Comm’n of Texas v. Gulf Energy Exploration Corp." on Justia Law

In 2004, Employee was working for Employer when she fell, injuring her left knee and back. In 2009, Employee filed a claim for lifetime income benefits (LIBs) pursuant to section 408.161 of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act claiming that her 2004 injury caused the total loss of use of both her feet at or above the ankle and that the loss of use was permanent. A hearing officer with the Division of Workers’ Compensation determined that Employee was not entitled to LIBs. The district court reversed and awarded LIBs. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment denying Employee’s claim for LIBs, concluding that the court of appeals erred in determining that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s judgment. View "Dallas Nat’l Ins. Co. v. De La Cruz" on Justia Law

McGinnes Industrial Waste Corporation dumped pulp and paper mill waste sludge into disposal pits near the San Jacinto River in Pasadena, Texas (the site). After environmental contamination was discovered at the site, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) instituted superfund cleanup proceedings under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). During the period that McGinnes was dumping waste at the Site, it was covered by standard-form commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies issued by Phoenix Insurance Company and Travelers Indemnity Company (together, the Insurers). McGinnes requested a defense in the EPA proceedings from the Insurers. The Insurers refused, determining that the proceedings were not a “suit” under the policy. McGinnes sued the insurers in federal court seeking a declaration that the policies obligated them to defend the EPA’s CERCLA proceedings. The district court granted the Insurers’ motion for partial summary judgment on the duty-to-defend issue. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit certified a question regarding the issue to the Texas Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered that “suit” in the CGL policies at issue must also include CERCLA enforcement proceedings by the EPA. View "McGinnes Indus. Maint. Corp. v. Phoenix Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Petitioners in this case were deaf inmates housed in a unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). Petitioners sued TDCJ’s executive director, asserting that he violated the Texas Human Resources Code by failing reasonably to accommodate their impairment. Petitioners relied on the ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity as a basis for showing that the trial court had jurisdiction. The trial court granted a temporary injunction ordering TDCJ to make certain accommodations. The court of appeals reversed and dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction, holding that TDCJ prison facilities are not “public facilities” under the Code, and therefore, Defendant could not have acted ultra vires by failing to comply with its provisions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in holding that TDCJ prisons are not “public facilities” under the Code and that Petitioners failed to show Defendant acted ultra vires. View "Beeman v. Livingston" on Justia Law

Greater Houston Partnership (GHP) is a nonprofit corporation providing economic development services to the City and other clients pursuant to quid pro quo contracts. A Houston area resident submitted to GHP a request seeking a copy of GHP’s check register. The resident claimed that GHP is an organization that spends or is supported in whole or in part by public funds, and therefore, GHP is subject to the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) in the same manner as a governmental body. GHP did not disclose the requested information, claiming that it did not qualify as a “governmental body” under the TPIA because the public funds it received were compensation for services provided to the City of Houston pursuant to a contract. The Attorney General concluded that GHP was subject to the TPIA’s disclosure requirements. The trial court agreed, and the court of appeals affirmed the trial court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that GHP is not a “governmental body” under the TPIA because it is not wholly or partially sustained by public funds. View "Greater Houston P’ship v. Paxton" on Justia Law

Certain provisions of the Texas Occupations Code and Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation rules promulgated pursuant to that Code require eyebrow threaders to undergo 750 hours of training in order to obtain a license before practicing commercial threading. Plaintiffs, several individuals practicing commercial eyebrow threading and the salon owners employing them, filed this declaratory judgment action asserting that, as applied to them, Texas’s licensing statutes and regulations violate the state Constitution’s due course of law provision. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that the number of hours required for a license to practice commercial eyebrow threading are not related to health or safety or to what threaders actually do. The trial court granted summary judgment for the State. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the large number of required hours that are not arguably related to the actual practice of threading, the associated costs of those hours, and the delayed employment opportunities while taking the hours make the licensing requirements as a whole reach the level of being so burdensome that they are oppressive in light of the governmental interest. View "Patel v. Dep’t of Licensing & Regulation" on Justia Law