Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Southern Crushed Concrete (SCC) filed a municipal permit application with the City of Houston to move a concrete-crushing facility to a new location. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission) had previously issued a permit authorizing construction of the facility at the proposed location. The City, however, denied the permit because the concrete-crushing operations would violate a city ordinance's location restriction. SCC sued the City, arguing that the ordinance was preempted by the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), which provides that a municipal ordinance may not make unlawful a condition or act approved or authorized under the TCAA or the Commission's rules or orders. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the ordinance was preempted by the TCAA and unenforceable. View "S. Crushed Concrete, LLC v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged that while she was a patient at a hospital, a hospital nurse, who was temporarily placed with the hospital by a staffing service, assaulted her. Plaintiff sued under the Texas Medical Liability Act, asserting that the staffing service was directly and vicariously liable for the nurse's conduct. The staffing service filed a motion to dismiss because the patient's expert reports did not specify how the service was directly negligent. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that because the reports supported a theory of vicarious liability against the staffing service, the lack of a description supporting direct liability was not fatal to Plaintiff's maintaining her cause of action. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding (1) an expert report that adequately addresses at least one pleaded liability theory satisfies the statutory requirements, and the trial court must not dismiss in such a case; and (2) Plaintiff demonstrated that at least one of her alleged theories, vicarious liability, had expert support, and therefore, the trial court correctly denied the motion to dismiss. View "Certified EMS, Inc. v. Potts" on Justia Law

Doctor examined Patient to determine whether she met the criteria for involuntary hospitalization for psychiatric care. Doctor decided she did not and released her. Three days later Patient committed suicide. Patient's sons (Plaintiffs) sued Doctor for negligence in failing to involuntarily hospitalize Plaintiff. The jury found against Doctor and awarded damages of $200,000. The trial court rendered judgment on the verdict, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment in favor of Doctor, holding that because there was no evidence that Patient's involuntary hospitalization by Doctor probably would have prevented her death, the evidence was legally insufficient to support the finding that his negligence proximately caused her death. View "Rodriguez-Escobar v. Goss" on Justia Law

The State brought an action for forfeiture of a vehicle and $90,235 found in it following a traffic stop, alleging that the property was contraband. The driver of the vehicle (Driver) answered the suit, asserting that he owned the property and requesting dismissal of the forfeiture action. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Driver. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that a substantial connection existed between the property and illegal drug dealing activities. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the determination of whether law enforcement officers had probable cause to seize the property, that is, a reasonable belief in a substantial connection between the property and illegal activities, must be assessed in light of the facts as the seizing officers reasonably believed them to be; and (2) Driver did not conclusively negate such a belief. Remanded. View "States v. Ninety Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Five Dollars" on Justia Law

Richmont Holdings purchased the assets of Superior Recharge Systems. The terms of the sales were set out in a purchase agreement that included a provision for binding arbitration of any dispute relating to the agreement. In connection with the sale, Richmont Holdings agreed to hire John Blake for a period of two years. The employment agreement did not include an arbitration provision. Six months later, Blake's employment was terminated. Blake sued Richmont. Richmont answered and later moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Richmont waived its arbitration rights because it had substantially invoked the judicial process. The court of appeals affirmed but on different grounds, holding that the parties did not have a valid agreement to arbitrate because the dispute arose exclusively out of the employment agreement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals' failure to recognize the arbitration agreement at issue in this case was contrary to the Court's precedent, which mandates enforcement of such an agreement absent proof of a defense. Remanded to consider the waiver of defense raised below. View "Richmont Holdings, Inc v. Superior Recharge Sys., LLC" on Justia Law

Shipper engaged Common Carrier to transport computer equipment belonging to Company. Company claimed the shipment was damaged on arrival, and Common Carrier refused to pay the amount that Company claimed Common Carrier had agreed to settle the claim for. Company asserted a claim against Shipper, whose Insurer paid Company. As subrogee, Insurer sued Common Carrier for breach of the settlement agreement. Insurer avoided removal to federal court by not asserting a cargo-damage claim, but, on remand, amended its petition to assert one. Common Carrier contended the cargo-damage claim was barred by limitations because Insurer filed it more than four years after Common Carrier rejected Company's claim. Insurer argued the cargo-damage claim related back to its original action for breach of the settlement agreement and thus was timely filed. The trial court agreed and rendered judgment against Common Carrier. The court of appeals held the cargo-damage claim did not relate back and was therefore barred by limitations. The Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment for Insurer, holding that Insurer's cargo-damage claim was not barred by limitations, as the cargo-damage claim and breach-of-settlement claim both arose out of the same occurrence and, therefore, the relation-back doctrine applied. View "Lexington Ins. Co. v. Daybreak Express, Inc." on Justia Law

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