Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case involved two related oil and gas mineral lease disputes that were jointly tried. At issue was whether limitations barred the Marshalls' (respondents and lessors) fraud claim against BP America Production Co., et al. (the lessee and operator), and whether Vaquillas Ranch Co., Ltd., et al. (lessors) lost title by adverse possession after Wagner Oil Co. (successors-in-interest) succeeded to BP's interests, took over the operations, and produced and paid Vaquillas royalties for nearly twenty years. The court held that because the Marshalls' injury was not inherently undiscoverable and BP's fraudulent representations about its good faith efforts to develop the well could have been discovered with reasonable diligence before limitations expired, neither the discovery rule nor fraudulent concealment extended limitations. Accordingly, the Marshalls' fraud claims against BP were time-barred. The court further held that by paying a clearly labeled royalty to Vaquillas, Wagner sufficiently asserted its intent to oust Vaquillas to acquire the lease by adverse possession. View "BP America Prod. Co., et al. v. Marshall, et al." on Justia Law

Respondent appealed the Dallas Urban Rehabilitation Standards Board's decision that her house was a nuisance and order of demolition, alleging a due process claim and a claim for an unconstitutional taking. The trial court, on substantial evidence review, affirmed the Board's findings. The court of appeals affirmed but held that the Board's nuisance finding could not be preclusive because of the brief delay between the nuisance finding and the house's demolition. The city petitioned the court for review, arguing that the lower courts erred in failing to give the Board's nuisance determination preclusive effect in respondent's taking claim. The court held that a system that permitted constitutional issues of this importance to be decided by an administrative board, whose decisions were essentially conclusive, did not correctly balance the need to abate nuisances against the rights accorded to property owners under the Texas Constitution. Accordingly, independent court review was a necessity and affirmed the court of appeals but on different grounds. View "City of Dallas v. Stewart" on Justia Law

Voters sued the Secretary of State arguing that her certification of the eSlate, a paperless direct recording electronic machine, violated the Election Code and the Texas Constitution. At issue was whether voters had standing to pursue complaints about an electronic voting machine that did not produce a contemporaneous paper record of each vote. The court held that because it concluded that most of the voters allegations involved generalized grievances about the lawfulness of government acts, and because their remaining claims failed on their merits, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and rendered judgment dismissing the case. View "Andrade v. NAACP, et al." on Justia Law

Respondent, on behalf of the estate of her deceased sister, filed suit against petitioner, a nursing home, alleging that while the sister was being cared for by petitioner, she was bitten by a brown recluse spider and died. At issue was whether the claims were healthcare liability claims that required an expert report to be served. The court held that the claims fell within the statutory definition of a health care liability claim and therefore, the statute required the suit to be dismissed unless respondent timely filed an expert report. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and reversed and remanded. View "Omaha Healthcare Center, LLC v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Respondent sued petitioner and two other doctors alleging that they negligently performed a medial maxillectomy to remove growth from Samuel Santillan's sinus cavity which resulted in brain damage and partial paralysis. At issue was whether a letter sent to the physicians qualified as an expert's report under the Medical Liability Act, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 74.001-.507. The court held that a document qualified as an expert report if it contained a statement of opinion by an individual with expertise indicating that the claim asserted by the plaintiff against the defendant had merit. An individual's lack of relevant qualifications and an opinion's inadequacies are deficiencies the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to cure if it was possible to do so. This lenient standard avoided the expense and delay of multiple interlocutory appeals and assured a claimant fair opportunity to demonstrate his claim was not frivolous. Therefore, the court held that the letter at issue met this test and the trial court's order allowing thirty days to cure deficiencies and denying petitioner's motions to dismiss were not appealable. Accordingly the court affirmed the judgment. View "Scoresby, M.D. v. Santillan, et al." on Justia Law

Two reporters representing three newspapers asked the Department of Public Safety (DPS) for travel vouchers from Governor Rick Perry's security detail. DPS noted that it was responsible for staffing the governor's protective detail and that it did not publicly discuss information related to the governor's protective detail because that information would be valuable to someone who intended to cause the governor harm. At issue was whether the public's right to information was subject to reasonable limitations when its production could lead to physical harm. The court held that the Legislature recognized the importance of protecting physical safety and that several Public Information Act (PIA), Government Code section 552.101 et seq., exceptions were grounded in a concern for physical safety. The court also noted that the Attorney General had applied a special circumstances exception to disclosure in over 230 cases since the 1970's. Therefore, the court held that there was a common law physical safety exception to the PIA and remanded for further proceedings. View "TX Dept. of Public Safety v. Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P., et al." on Justia Law

The State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) refused to disclose certain decisions and orders in license suspension cases related to delinquent child support. At issue was whether the information was expressly excepted from disclosure by the Texas Public Information Act, Tex. Gov't Code 552.101-,148. The court declined to read the language of the statute broader than it was written and concluded that the purpose and intent of the statute could be fulfilled by disclosing the requested documents. Accordingly, the court held that the decisions and orders must be disclosed after redaction of information expressly excepted from disclosure and not already in a public record or otherwise in the public domain. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. State Office of Administrative Hearings, et al." on Justia Law

This appeal challenged a final order of the Public Utility Commission (PUC) in a true-up proceeding under Chapter 39 of the Utilities Code. AEP Texas Central Co. (AEP), a transmission and distribution utility, and CPL Retail Energy, L.P., its affiliated retail electric provider, initiated a proceeding under section 39.262 to finalize stranded costs and other true-up amounts and the state, several municipalities, and several other parties who were consumers of electricity or represent consumer interests (collectively, consumers), intervened in the proceeding. The issues before the court concern market value, net book value (NBV), and the capacity auction true-up. The court held that where, as here, the utility managed to sell its stake in a nuclear plant, the court saw no error in using the sale of assets method, which was, if anything, the preferred method for valuing generation assets. The court also held that it saw no error in PUC's approach where the interest rate AEP received on its stranded costs was grossed up. The court further held that section 39.262 unambiguously specified that the statutory capacity auction price, not some other blended price the PUC found more appropriate, must be used in calculating the capacity auction true-up amount. On remand, the PUC must recalculate the capacity auction true-up in a manner consistent with the court's opinion in State v. PUC, rather than relying on the proxy price it selected in the true-up proceeding. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, affirming in part and reversing in part. View "AEP Texas Central Co. v. Public Utility Comm'n of Texas, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner sued respondent for injuries he sustained when the car he was driving collided with respondent's minivan as she was pulling out of a grocery store parking lot. At issue was whether section 41.0105 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code precluded evidence or recovery of expenses that neither the claimant nor anyone acting on is behalf would ultimately be liable for paying. The court held that only evidence of recoverable medical expenses was admissible at trial. The court also held that the collateral source rule continued to apply to such expenses and the jury should not be told that they would be covered in whole or in part by insurance. Nor should the jury be told that a health care provider adjusted its charges because of insurance. Accordingly, section 41.0105 limited recovery and consequently, the evidence at trial, to expenses that the provider had a legal right to be paid. View "Haygood v. Garza de Escabedo" on Justia Law

The City of Dallas seized vehicles, which it alleged were stolen, from a company that was entitled to petition for their return. Instead of pursuing its statutory remedy, the company sued, alleging that its interest in those vehicles had been taken without just compensation. The court held that because the company had actual knowledge of the vehicles seizure the company knew the cars were seized from its lots, and it knew who seized them, it was required to pursue a chapter 47 proceeding. Accordingly, the court held that the availability of the statutory remedy precluded a takings claims and reversed the court of appeals judgment and rendered judgment dismissing the suit. View "City of Dallas v. VSC, LLC" on Justia Law