Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The State seized thirty-seven gaming machines called "eight-liners" after the sheriff's department executed a warrant to search a game room owned by Sammy Barnes. The warrant was obtained after an investigation, which yielded information that the eight-liners were awarding players tickets they could redeem for future play on another day, referred to as non-immediate rights of replay. Barnes challenged the seizure, contending that his eight-liners were statutorily excluded from the definition of "gambling device" because the contrivances rewarded players "exclusively with noncash merchandise, prizes, toys, or novelties." The trial court ordered the eight-liners forfeited to the State. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the eight-liners fell within the exclusion to the definition of "gambling devices" because the non-immediate rights of replay could be considered "novelties" under the exclusion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that non-immediate rights of replay are not novelties, and therefore, the eight-liners did not fall within the exclusion because the distributed tickets were not redeemable exclusively for noncash merchandise, prizes, toys, or novelties. View "State v. $1,760 in U.S. Currency" on Justia Law

The family of a nursing home patient filed this action against the nursing home for, inter alia, medical negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, and retaliation. Plaintiffs asserted the retaliation claim under the Texas Health & Safety Code, which creates a cause of action against a nursing facility that retaliates against a resident or family member who makes a complaint concerning the facility. Defendants moved to dismiss all of the claims pursuant to the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA) because the expert report was deficient. The trial court dismissed all of Plaintiffs' claims except for the retaliation claim, concluding that the claim was not a health care liability claim (HCLC) for which the TMLA requires a supporting expert report. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment with respect to the retaliation claim, holding that because the retaliation claim was based on the same factual allegations on which one of Plaintiffs' HCLCs was based, the claim should have been dismissed for lack of a sufficient expert report. View "PM Management-Trinity NC, LLC v. Kumets" on Justia Law

When Father and Mother divorced, the divorce decree awarded Mother sole physical custody of Child and ordered Father to pay monthly child support. Years later, Mother and Father agreed Father's support obligation would cease if he voluntarily relinquished his parental rights. Father signed the necessary paperwork, but Mother's attorney never filed it in court. Nine years later, Father received notice from the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) that he had failed to comply with the child support order and owed $81,450 in arrearages. Father denied that he owed the money, claiming that Mother, and thus the OAG, was estopped from pursuing child support payments because Mother led him to believe his parental rights had been terminated years earlier. The trial court rejected Father's estoppel defense and ordered him to pay arrearages. The court of appeals reversed and instructed the trial court to conduct a hearing on Father's estoppel defense. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that estoppel is not a defense to a child support enforcement proceeding. View "Office of Attorney Gen. v. Scholer" on Justia Law

After an investigation into allegations that Doctor had self-prescribed medications, the Board placed Doctor on probation. A media outlet subsequently aired an investigative broadcast suggesting that Doctor was disciplined for operating on patients while taking drugs. Doctor and his professional association (collectively Plaintiffs) sued Media Defendants for defamation. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that under McIlvain v. Jacobs, none of Defendant's statements were actionable as a matter of law because the media outlet accurately reported third-party allegations. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Doctor raised a genuine issue of material fact as to the truth of falsity of the broadcast with evidence that he was not disciplined for taking drugs and had never performed surgery while taking them; and (2) therefore, Defendants could could avail themselves of the truth defense. Remanded. View "Neely v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendants for negligence based on an undertaking theory and for premises liability after he suffered personal injuries at a party at Defendants' residence. The trial court rendered summary judgment for Defendants as to Plaintiff's negligence claim. The court of appeals reversed, finding that summary judgment was improper because Defendants' summary judgment motion only addressed social host liability and failed to address the negligent-undertaking theory. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendants' summary judgment motion specifically addressed Plaintiff's negligent-undertaking claim by arguing that Graff v. Beard forecloses the assumption of any duty, i.e., an undertaking, by a social host under the facts of this case. View "Nall v. Plunkett" on Justia Law

Three retired fire fighters (Respondents) previously employed by the Houston Fire Department (HFD) sued the City of Houston to recover allegedly unauthorized deductions from their termination pay upon retirement. Specifically, Respondents asserted (1) the City wrongfully deducted pay for overtime hours that the HFD required fire rights to work after the implementation of a new shift schedule; and (2) the City incorrectly calculated each fire fighter's salary for purposes of paying termination pay upon their retirement. The trial court found in favor of Respondents on both claims and awarded two of Respondents reimbursement for overtime pay and all Respondents additional termination pay for accrued and unused sick and vacation leave. The Supreme Court (1) reversed as to the first claim related to the overtime pay, holding that the two Respondents were not entitled to receive reimbursement for overtime pay; and (2) affirmed as to the second claim related to additional termination pay, holding that all Respondents were entitled to recover additional termination pay. View "City of Houston v. Bates " on Justia Law

Plaintiff owed the surface estate of a forty-acre tract. Defendant, the lessee of the tract's severed mineral estate, constructed a well site on Plaintiff's tract without Plaintiff's approval. Plaintiff filed suit seeking an injunction requiring Defendant to remove the well, asserting that Defendant failed to accommodate his existing use of the surface so Defendant's acts exceeded its rights in the mineral estate and constituted a trespass. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendant, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, even assuming that the failure of Defendant's operations to accommodate Defendant's existing use would have been sufficient to support injunctive relief, Plaintiff failed to raise a material fact issue as to whether Defendant failed to accommodate his use. View "Merriman v. XTO Energy, Inc." on Justia Law

A 2003 amendment to the Texas Constitution allowed the Legislature to delegate to a state agency the power to interpret certain provisions of the Constitution governing home equity lending. The state agency quickly issued final interpretations of the aforementioned provisions of the Constitution. Six homeowners then brought this action against the agency, challenging several of the interpretations. A bankers association intervened. The trial court invalidated many of the interpretations. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the agency's interpretations of the provisions of the Constitution governing home equity lending were subject to judicial review; (2) the homeowners had standing to assert their claims; and (3) of the three interpretations at issue in this appeal, one was valid and two were invalid. View "Fin. Comm'n of Tex. v. Norwood" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, as next friends of their daughter (Daughter) sued Hospital for injuries sustained by Daughter following her premature birth. One hundred and sixteen days after filing their original petition, Plaintiffs nonsuited their claim. Plaintiffs later filed a new lawsuit against Hospital and other health care providers and served an expert report on Hospital. Hospital objected to the report as untimely and moved to dismiss the claim against it. The trial court overruled the objection and denied the motion to dismiss. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that Plaintiffs timely served their expert report. At issue on appeal was the Texas Medical Liability Act's (TMLA) expert-report requirement, which requires a claimant to serve an expert report on health care providers against whom the claim is asserted 120 days after the original petition is filed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a claimant's nonsuit of a health care liability claim before the expiration of the 120-day period tolls the expert-report period until suit is refiled. View "CHCA Woman's Hosp., LP v. Lidji" on Justia Law

This suit was filed as a putative class action on behalf of Texas royalty owners alleging that Phillips Petroleum Company underpaid oil and gas royalties. The trial court certified three subclasses of royalty owners. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed as to two of the subclasses but reversed as to the third subclass, which alleged breach of a uniform express royalty provision contained in gas royalty agreements that amended the class members' leases. On remand, Respondent, class representative of the remaining subclass, amended her petition to add a claim for breach of the implied covenant to market. Phillips unsuccessfully filed various motions contending that there was no class claim for breach of the implied covenant to market. The court of appeals dismissed Phillips' interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied Phillips' petition for writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in dismissing the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the addition of a class claim for breach of the implied covenant to market without requiring Respondent to file an amended motion for class certification or holding a certification hearing. View "Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Yarbrough" on Justia Law