Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Firefighters for the City of Baytown sued the City claiming that it improperly calculated pay for certain assignments in violation of the Firefighter and Police Civil Services Act. Here, the firefighters' claims for back pay and related damages for improper calculation of pay for assignments performed in the past were the type of retrospective relief that the court held barred by governmental immunity in City of El Paso v. Heinrich and City of Houston v. Williams. In Heinrich, the court noted however, that the Legislature could authorize retrospective relief. The firefighters asserted that the Legislature had done so with Local Government Code sections 271.151-.160, enacted during the pendency of this appeal. In addition to remanding to permit the firefighters to replead in light of Chapter 271, the court also remanded to permit the firefighters to replead in light of Heinrich and seek appropriate relief, if any, against the relevant city officials. View "Lowell, et al. v. Baytown, et al." on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiff filed suit against its former employee and the employee's new employer for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, claiming, among other things, that the new employer had solicited and accepted business from clients and prospects of plaintiff who were serviced by the new employer or where the new employer supervised the solicitation of activities related to the client or potential client. At issue on appeal was whether a covenant not to compete signed by a valued employee in consideration for stock options, designed to give the employee a greater stake in the company's performance, was unenforceable as a matter of law because the stock options did not give rise to an interest in restraining competition. The court held that, under the terms of the Covenants Not to Compete Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code ch. 15, the consideration for the noncompete agreement was reasonably related to the company's interest in protecting its goodwill, a business interest the Act recognized as worthy of protection. The noncompete was thus not enforceable on that basis. The court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Marsh USA Inc., et al. v. Cook" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Ryland in 2007 and the case went to trial in May 2010. On May 4th, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff. On May 25, 2010 - after the jury verdict but before the judgment was signed - Ryland filed a JNOV motion on legal insufficiency grounds. Though not styled as a motion for new trial, the JNOV motion also requested a new trial in the alternative. Prior to holding a hearing on the JNOV motion, the trial court signed a judgment for plaintiff on June 14, 2010, initiating the appellate time table. The judgment also purported to deny Ryland's JNOV motion. The court held that because an arguable interpretation of the procedural rules allowed Ryland's premature, JNOV motion to extend the appellate timetable to 90 days, the court of appeals erred in dismissing the appeal. Accordingly, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1 without hearing oral argument, the court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to that court. View "Ryland Enterprise, Inc. v. Weatherspoon" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Shell for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud, based on claims that Shell underpaid royalty due under a mineral lease to plaintiff's grandmother. At issue was whether limitations barred a royalty owner's claims against the operator of the field. The court held that the fraudulent concealment doctrine did not apply to extend limitations as a matter of law when the royalty underpayments could have been discovered from readily accessible and publicly available information before the limitations period expired. When, as in this case, the information was publicly available and readily accessible to the royalty owner during the applicable time period, a royalty owner who failed to take action did not use reasonable diligence as a matter of law. Accordingly, because the parties did not dispute that the pertinent information was readily accessible and publicly available, plaintiff's claims were time-barred as a matter of law. View "Shell Oil Co., et al. v. Ross" on Justia Law

This case arose out of patent infringement litigation. At issue was whether federal courts possess exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over state-based legal malpractice claims that require the application of patent law. The federal patent issue presented here was necessary, disputed, and substantial within the context of the overlying state legal malpractice lawsuit. Additionally, the patent issue could be determined without creating a jurisdictional imbalance between state and federal courts. Therefore, the court concluded that exclusive federal jurisdiction existed in this case. Accordingly, without reaching the merits of the legal malpractice claim, the court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and dismissed this case. View "Minton v. Gunn, et al." on Justia Law

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