Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2008, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) filed suit to terminate Father’s parental rights to his two children. Two trials resulted in the termination of Father’s parental rights. In both cases, the court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial on the grounds that there was factually insufficient evidence of endangerment. DFPS and intervenors filed motions for en banc reconsideration. The court of appeals granted the motion and affirmed the termination of Father’s parental rights, finding the evidence of endangerment factually sufficient to support termination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals, in affirming the termination, adhered to the proper standard for conducting a factual sufficiency review. View "In re A.B." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, the recipients of a home equity loan, reached two loan modification agreements with Defendant, which reduced the interest rate and payments. Plaintiffs subsequently brought this class action against Defendant in the United States District Court, alleging that the loan modifications violated Tex. Const. art. XVI, 50, which sets forth requirements for a new home equity loan. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a cause of action. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the Supreme Court whether the requirements of Article XVI, Section 50 apply to the type of loan restructuring in this case. The Supreme Court answered that, as long as the original note is not satisfied and replaced, and there is no additional extension of credit, the Constitution does not prohibit the restructuring of a home equity loan that already meets its requirements in order to avoid foreclosure. View "Sims v. Carrington Mortgage Servs., LLC" on Justia Law

Waste Management of Texas, Inc. (“WMT”) and Texas Disposal Systems Landfill, Inc. (“TDS”) competed for waste-disposal and landfill-services contracts with two Texas cities. During the bidding process, WMT anonymously published a community “Action Alert” claiming that TDS’s landfills were less environmentally sensitive than they actually were and as compared to other area landfills. TDS sued WMT for defamation. After a second trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of TDS, awarding it $450,592 for expenses, $5 million for injury to reputation, and $20 million as exemplary damages. The trial court treated the $5 million award for injury to reputation as non-economic damages for purposes of the statutory cap on exemplary damages and rendered an exemplary damage award of approximately $1.6 million. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) a corporation may suffer reputation damages, and such damages are non-economic in nature for purposes of the statutory cap on exemplary damages; (2) the evidence in this case was not sufficient to support the award of reputation damages; and (3) TDS was entitled to exemplary damages, but the amount must be recalculated. View "Waste Mgmt. of Tex., Inc. v. Tex. Disposal Sys. Landfill, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and Defendant were competitors. Plaintiff sued Defendant for tortious interference with Plaintiff’s non-solicitation agreements with employees. Five days after receiving a settlement offer from Defendant, Plaintiff filed its designation of expert witnesses. After Defendant filed its own expert designations, Plaintiff sent a letter “accepting” Defendant’s settlement offer. Defendant refused to pay the previously agreed-to amount based on fraudulent inducement and failure of consideration. Plaintiff amended its pleadings to assert a breach of contract claim based on the alleged settlement agreement. The trial court granted Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion on the breach of contract claim. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that no settlement agreement existed because Plaintiff had not accepted all of the offer’s material terms. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence established that Plaintiff accepted Defendant’s offer. Remanded. View "Amedisys, Inc. v. Kingwood Home Health Care, LLC" on Justia Law

Mark Fisher and Reece Boudreaux were limited partners of Nighthawk Oilfield Services, Ltd. (“Nighthawk”), which acquired Richey Oilfield Construction, Inc. (“Richey Oil”) from Mike Richey. The business did not go well, and Nighthawk and Richey Oil filed for bankruptcy. Richey sued Fisher and Boudreaux in Wise County where Richey resided, alleging claims for, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud, statutory fraud and violations of the Texas Security Act. Fisher and Boudreaux responded by moving to transfer venue to Tarrant County or dismiss the suit pursuant to the mandatory venue selection clauses in the acquisition documents. The trial court denied the motions. Fisher and Boudreaux sought mandamus relief from the court of appeals, which denied relief. The Supreme Court conditionally granted relief, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to enforce the venue selection clauses in the acquisition documents. View "In re Fisher" on Justia Law

The estate and survivors of Belinda Valdemar sued Health Care Unlimited, Inc. (HCU) and its employee, Edna Gonzalez, after Valdemar died as a result of an automobile accident. Valdemar was a passenger in a vehicle that Gonzalez was driving at the time of the accident. The jury agreed that Gonzalez negligently caused the accident but found that Gonzalez was not acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the accident, and therefore, HCU was not vicariously liable. Valdemar’s survivors filed a motion for a mistrial, alleging that the presiding juror engaged in juror misconduct by communicating with an HCU employee during breaks while the jury was deliberating. The trial court granted the motion. HCU petitioned the court of appeals for mandamus relief, which was denied. The Supreme Court conditionally granted relief, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial, where the facts in this case, without more, did not support a finding that the communications between the juror and the HCU employee probably caused injury. View "In re Health Care Unlimited, Inc. " on Justia Law

Most of the employees at a La Porte unit (“Unit”) of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont”) were covered by a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). When DuPont announced plans to spin off part of its operations, including the Unit, into a wholly owned subsidiary, DuPont Textiles and Interiors (“DTI”), almost all of the Unit employees moved to DTI, even though the CBA gave the employees the right to transfer to other DuPont jobs. DuPont subsequently sold DTI to Koch Industries, which reduced the former DuPont employees’ compensation and retirement benefits. Several of the former DuPont employees sued DuPont for fraudulently inducing them to terminate their employment and accept employment with DTI by misrepresenting that DTI would not be sold. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals certified questions of law to the Texas Supreme Court, which answered by holding (1) at-will employees cannot bring an action against their corporate employer for fraud that is dependent on continued employment; and (2) employees covered under a cancellation-upon-notice CBA that limits the employer’s ability to discharge its employees only for just cause cannot bring Texas fraud claims against their employer based on allegations that the employer fraudulently induced them to terminate their employment. View "Sawyer v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a premises liability suit against Defendant, Whataburger Restaurants LP, for injuries sustained in a fight outside of Defendant’s restaurant. The jury rendered a 10-2 verdict in favor of Defendant, and the trial court entered a take-nothing judgment based on the jury’s verdict. Plaintiffs filed a motion for new trial, asserting that one of the ten majority jurors had committed misconduct when she failed to disclose prior to trial that she had previously been a defendant in a lawsuit. The trial court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for new trial on the ground that Plaintiffs were denied the opportunity to question or strike the juror in light of the missing information. Defendant filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the court of appeals, which was denied. Defendant sought mandamus review in the Supreme Court. The Court conditionally granted the petition, holding that because the record contained no competent evidence that the juror’s nondisclosure resulted in probable injury, and the only competent evidence supported that it did not, the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial. View "In re Whataburger Rests. LP" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Defendant, which provided laser hair removal services, for negligence after she allegedly suffered burns and scarring on her face and neck while receiving laser hair removal treatments. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss because Plaintiff had not served an expert report as required by the Medical Liability Act for health care liability claims. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiff did not rebut the presumption that her claim for improper laser hair removal was a health care liability claim, and therefore, Plaintiff’s failure to serve an expert report precluded her suit. View "Rio Grande Valley Vein Clinic, P.A. v. Guerrero" on Justia Law

Respondents filed claims against Petitioners relating to certain oil and gas ventures. At issue in this case was Respondents’ assignment claim, which an involved an agreement between Respondents and Petitioners for Respondents to pay a portion of drilling and operating costs in exchange for an assignment of a partial working interest in producing wells. After a bench trial, the trial court largely ruled for Respondents and awarded them $35,000 in attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court modified Respondents’ recovery on appeal and remanded for the trial court to redetermine the attorney’s fee award. On remand, the trial court awarded Respondents $30,000 in attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that no legally sufficient evidence supported the amount of the attorney’s fee award because Respondents offered no evidence of the time expended on particular tasks as required via the lodestar method. Remanded. View "Long v. Griffin" on Justia Law