Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This appeal stemmed from a personal injury settlement between Plaintiff, a minor, and Ford Motor Company. Acting on his own initiative, the pretrial judge appointed an attorney (Attorney) to represent Plaintiff's interest in the settlement. Plaintiff's mother (Mother), as next friend of Plaintiff, unsuccessfully challenged - through a motion to reconsider and later a writ of mandamus - the appointment of Attorney as Plaintiff's guardian ad litem. The pretrial judge ultimately rendered a judgment approving the settlement and ordering Ford to pay $40,000 to Attorney in guardian ad litem fees and expenses. The court of appeals (1) affirmed the pretrial judge's appointment of Attorney as guardian ad litem, finding that Mother's responsibilities toward Plaintiff constituted the conflict necessitating the appointment of Attorney as guardian ad litem; and (2) affirmed the ad litem fee award. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court abused its discretion by appointing a guardian ad litem, as there was no conflict of interest between Plaintiff and Mother; and (2) any services rendered by Attorney after the time the pretrial judge considered Mother's motion to reconsider were not necessary and thus not compensable. Remanded for a determination of Attorney's fee award. View "Ford Motor Co. v. Stewart, Cox, & Hatcher, PC" on Justia Law

Respondent sued Petitioner for providing deficient geotechnical engineering services. Respondent attached to its petition an affidavit it believed complied with Tex Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 150.002, which required that Respondent in this case file an affidavit attesting to the claim's merit. The trial court denied Petitioner's motion for dismissal on the ground that the affidavit was deficient, and Petitioner appealed. Before the appeal could be decided, Respondent nonsuited its claims against Petitioner. The court of appeals held that the nonsuit mooted the appeal. Petitioner brought a petition for review. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Respondent's nonsuit did not moot Petitioner's appeal. Remanded. View "CTL/Thompson Tex., LLC v. Starwood Homeowner's Ass'n" on Justia Law

After Mother became pregnant with Father's child, Mother moved from Texas to New Mexico, where she lived with Child since his birth. Father filed for divorce and subsequently filed a petition requesting shared custody and seeking Mother's compelled return to Texas with Child. Mother petitioned a New Mexico court to adjudicate custody, asserting that court had jurisdiction because New Mexico was Child's home state. The New Mexico court dismissed Mother's case, concluding that Texas had jurisdiction over the proceedings because Father filed his divorce petition in Texas first. After unsuccessfully seeking mandamus relief from the court of appeals in the Texas case, Mother petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus. The Court conditionally granted relief, holding that because New Mexico, not Texas, was child's home state under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, and because there were no other exclusive, continuing jurisdictional bases under the Act, the Texas court improperly assumed jurisdiction. View "In re Dean" on Justia Law

A pipeline owner (Owner) purchased sixty-eight mile-long pipeline constructed in the 1940s and made plans to remove the old pipeline and construct a new one that would carry butane. Owner awarded Contractor the contract to replace a certain section of the pipeline. After Contractor commenced work, Contractor filed suit against Owner for breach of contract and fraud based on Owner's failure to locate several hundred "foreign crossings" in the pipeline's path and its subsequent refusal to compensate Contractor for its additional expenses resulting from the obstacles. The trial court found in favor of Owner, finding that the parties' contract allocated the risk of any additional cost incurred because of foreign crossings to Contractor. The court of appeals reversed, finding that Owner failed to exercise due diligence in locating the foreign crossings. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and reinstated the trial court's judgment, holding (1) the contract allocated all risk to Contractor for unknown obstacles discovered during the construction process; and (2) the jury's answers to questions about Contractor's recovery for breach of contract based on due diligence were immaterial. View "El Paso Field Servs., L.P. v. MasTec N.A., Inc." on Justia Law

Respondent sued the City of Houston. After an attempted settlement, Respondent asserted that the City breached the settlement agreement. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court denied. The court of appeals affirmed, but the Supreme Court reversed. On remand, the City filed another plea to the jurisdiction (2006 plea), arguing that it was immune from suit. The trial court implicitly denied the City's plea and set the case for trial. The City did not appeal. After Respondent died, the case was transferred to probate court. There the City filed a motion for summary judgment and an amended plea to the jurisdiction. The probate court denied the City's motion for summary judgment and, construing the City's amended plea as a motion to reconsider the 2006 plea, denied it. The City filed an interlocutory appeal. The court of appeals dismissed part of the appeal but considered the merits of part of it. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding the court of appeals erred by failing to dismiss the entire appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the amended plea was a motion to reconsider the 2006 plea, and time had expired for interlocutory appeal from it. View "City of Houston v. Estate of Jones" on Justia Law

Petitioners, several homeowners, filed an action against a gas company, alleging that noise and odor emanating from the company's compressor station caused a permanent nuisance. The company responded by asserting that because the homeowners' complaints predated their lawsuit by six years, the statute of limitations barred their action. After a jury trial, the trial court entered judgment for the homeowners, finding that a permanent nuisance, which began just before the lawsuit was filed, diminished property values. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals did not err in finding that some evidence supported the jury's finding in the accrual date; but (2) the conclusory and speculative testimony offered at trial did not support a finding of diminished property values. Remanded for a new trial on liability and damages. View "Natural Gas Pipeline of Am. v. Justiss " on Justia Law

This special defect case involved a concrete guardrail. Jose Perches was killed while navigating an underpass. Perches's parents sued the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). The trial court denied TxDOT's immunity-based jurisdictional plea. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that although the Percheses had not shown an immunity waiver for their negligent maintenance and implementation claims, they pleaded sufficient facts to demonstrate TxDOT's waiver of immunity with respect to their special defect claims. The Supreme Court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and rendered judgment dismissing the Percheses' claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act, holding (1) concrete guardrails placed in accordance to plan cannot constitute a special defect under the Act, and therefore, under the Act, the State's sovereign immunity was not waived; and (2) the Percheses did not plead sufficient facts demonstrating a waiver of immunity under the Act with respect to their premise liability claims. Remanded. View "Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Perches" on Justia Law

Petitioner suffered an injury while in the course and scope of his employment. The employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier paid medical benefits but contested the extent of Petitioner's entitlement to impairment income benefits. The Department of Insurance's Workers' Compensation Division determined that Petitioner had an impairment rating of twenty percent. The trial court reversed the agency's decision, ruling that Petitioner had no valid impairment rating. The court of appeals affirmed. While Petitioner's appeal to the Supreme Court was pending, the Court held in American Zurich Insurance Co. v. Samudio that the absence of a valid impairment rating that had been submitted to the agency did not deprive a reviewing court of subject matter jurisdiction. In light of its decision in Samudio, the Court then reversed and remanded to the trial court with instructions that the court remand the case to the Division in light of its determination that Petitioner had no valid impairment rating. View "DeLeon v. Royal Indem. Co." on Justia Law

This appeal questioned the validity of certain conditions a grantor placed on a dedicated public-street easement. The easement in question provided for a 100-foot-wide public right of way, but the instrument dedicating the land also provided that the street's curb lines were to be fifteen feet inside the street's boundary lines. The issue was whether this curb-line condition limited the dedication such that only the seventy-foot area between the curb lines could be used for vehicular traffic. The court of appeals concluded that the curb-line condition effectively limited the public easement in this way. The court further suggested that the State would have to use its eminent domain powers if the public roadway needed to be improved or widened beyond the existing curb lines. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) the State need not condemn property already already dedicated for a public street before widening the existing roadway; and (2) therefore, the State had the right to improve the existing roadway to the boundary of the dedicated street line notwithstanding the curb-line condition. View "State v. NICO-WF1, LLC" on Justia Law

A court cannot terminate a person's rights unless the State proves by clear and convincing evidence that the parent engaged in certain proscribed conduct, as specified in the Family Code, and that termination is in the best interest of the children. In this case, an immigrant convicted in another state of unlawful conduct with a minor and given a probated sentence years before his children were born was later deported to Mexico. The State relied on these facts in petitioning to terminate this father's parental rights, yet put on no evidence concerning the offense committed years earlier, nor the circumstances of his deportation. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment in part, holding that the evidence was legally insufficient to support termination of this father's parental rights under these facts. Remanded. View "In re E.N.C." on Justia Law