Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In the oilfields of West Texas, a dispute arose over the ownership of "produced water," a byproduct of oil-and-gas production. COG Operating, LLC, a hydrocarbon lessee, claimed ownership of the produced water under its oil-and-gas leases, arguing that the right to produce oil and gas includes the right to handle and dispose of the resulting liquid waste. Cactus Water Services, LLC, a surface-estate lessee, countered that once hydrocarbons are separated, the remaining produced water belongs to the surface estate unless expressly conveyed otherwise.The trial court ruled in favor of COG, declaring that COG owns the produced water and has exclusive rights to its possession, custody, control, and disposition. The court of appeals affirmed this decision, holding that produced water is oil-and-gas waste that belongs to the mineral lessee, not groundwater that belongs to the surface estate. The court emphasized that the leases did not suggest an intent to reserve rights to oil-and-gas waste for the surface owner.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that under Texas law, a conveyance of oil-and-gas rights includes the right to handle and dispose of produced water, which is considered oil-and-gas waste. The Court noted that produced water is inherently part of hydrocarbon production and must be managed by the operator. The Court rejected Cactus's argument that produced water should be treated as surface estate water, emphasizing that produced water is distinct from groundwater and is subject to specific regulatory requirements for waste disposal. The Court concluded that the leases conveyed the right to produced water to COG, and any reservation of rights to produced water by the surface owner must be expressly stated in the conveyance. View "CACTUS WATER SERVICES, LLC v. COG OPERATING, LLC" on Justia Law

A pickup truck driven by Trey Salinas lost control on an icy highway, crossed a median, and collided with an 18-wheeler driven by Shiraz Ali, resulting in the death of one child and severe injuries to three others. The plaintiffs argued that Ali's speed, although below the limit, was unsafe for the conditions and contributed to the severity of the accident.The jury in the district court found Werner Enterprises and Ali liable, attributing 70% of the responsibility to Werner employees other than Ali, 14% to Ali, and 16% to Salinas. The court awarded substantial damages to the plaintiffs. Werner and Ali appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, jury charge issues, apportionment, admission of evidence, and the award of future medical expenses. The Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas affirmed the district court's judgment.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and concluded that Ali's negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiffs' injuries. The court held that the sole proximate cause of the accident was Salinas losing control of his vehicle and crossing the median into oncoming traffic. The court determined that Ali's presence and speed on the highway merely furnished the condition that made the injuries possible but did not proximately cause them. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and rendered judgment in favor of the defendants, Werner Enterprises and Shiraz Ali. View "WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC. v. BLAKE" on Justia Law

A City of Houston police officer, while responding to an armed robbery, collided with another motorist, Maria Christina Gomez. The officer, Bobby Joe Simmons, was driving in heavy rain with his emergency lights on but did not engage his siren. He did not exceed the speed limit and applied his brakes when the traffic light turned yellow, but his car slid into the intersection and collided with Gomez's vehicle. Gomez sued the City for negligence, seeking damages for her injuries.The trial court granted the City’s plea to the jurisdiction, citing the Texas Tort Claims Act’s emergency exception, which preserves immunity unless the officer acted with "conscious indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of others." The Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas reversed this decision, finding a fact question regarding the officer's recklessness. The City then supplemented its plea with additional evidence and appealed again after the trial court denied the plea.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case de novo and concluded that the evidence showed, at most, ordinary negligence rather than recklessness. The court held that Simmons’s actions, including adjusting his radio and not exceeding the speed limit, did not demonstrate a willful or wanton disregard for safety. Consequently, the court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and rendered judgment dismissing Gomez’s claim against the City for lack of jurisdiction, reaffirming the City’s immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act’s emergency exception. View "City of Houston v. Gomez" on Justia Law

Cesar Posada sued Osvanis Lozada and his employer, TELS, Inc., after a collision between their tractor-trailers. Posada claimed negligence and negligence per se against Lozada and sought to hold TELS vicariously liable. Lozada's tire unexpectedly lost air, causing his truck to jackknife and block the highway, leading to Posada crashing into it. Lozada and TELS filed no-evidence motions for summary judgment, which the trial court granted.The trial court in El Paso County granted the no-evidence motions for summary judgment filed by Lozada and TELS, dismissing Posada's claims. Posada's motions for a new trial were denied. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas reversed the trial court's decision, holding that a reasonable jury could find that Lozada breached his duty of care and that his actions were the proximate cause of the collision. The court of appeals also reversed the summary judgment in favor of TELS, as their liability was predicated on Lozada's liability.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and concluded that Posada failed to produce summary-judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Lozada breached his duty of care. The court noted that the evidence showed Lozada was driving under the speed limit when his tire rapidly lost air, causing the accident. There was no evidence Lozada acted negligently in response to the tire failure. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment and reinstated the trial court's judgment, dismissing Posada's claims against Lozada and TELS with prejudice. View "Lozada v. Posada" on Justia Law

Johari Powell suffered serious injuries when her 2009 Hyundai Elantra stalled in traffic and was rear-ended. Powell alleged that the car stalled due to a fuel pump failure. Paul Swacina, on behalf of Powell and her minor children, sued multiple defendants in Texas state court, including Hyundam Industrial Company, Ltd., the manufacturer of the fuel pump. Hyundam, a South Korean company, filed a special appearance under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 120a, requesting dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. Hyundam argued it had no business operations or direct sales in Texas and no control over where its products were sold.The trial court overruled Swacina’s objections to an affidavit by Hyundam’s Managing Director and denied Hyundam’s special appearance. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Hyundam purposefully availed itself of the Texas market by designing fuel pumps for the North American region, which includes Texas. The court of appeals found that Hyundam’s actions were sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction in Texas.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and reversed the court of appeals' decision. The court held that there was no evidence Hyundam specifically targeted Texas. Designing a product for the North American region, which includes Texas, does not constitute purposeful availment of the Texas market. The court emphasized that mere foreseeability of a product ending up in Texas is insufficient for personal jurisdiction. The court concluded that Hyundam did not engage in any conduct specifically targeting Texas and thus did not purposefully avail itself of the Texas market. The Supreme Court of Texas rendered judgment dismissing the case against Hyundam. View "Hyundam Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Swacina" on Justia Law

A Piper Light Sport Aircraft lost engine power and crashed on a runway in Addison, Texas, causing severe injuries to Sheema Shaik, a passenger, and emotional distress to her husband, Touseef Siddiqui. The Shaiks, Texas residents, filed a lawsuit in Dallas County against multiple parties, including BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co. KG (Rotax), the Austrian manufacturer of the aircraft engine. They claimed that Texas courts had specific personal jurisdiction over Rotax because it intentionally placed the defective engine into the stream of commerce, leading to its arrival in Texas.The trial court denied Rotax's special appearance motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas affirmed this decision, concluding that Rotax purposefully availed itself of the Texas market under the "stream-of-commerce-plus" test. The court of appeals cited Rotax's distribution agreement with Kodiak, its website, a repair center in Texas, and the number of Rotax engines registered in Texas as evidence of purposeful availment.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and reversed the lower court's decision. The court held that Rotax did not purposefully avail itself of the Texas market. The evidence showed that Rotax's engines reached Texas through the unilateral actions of third parties, not through any direct targeting or control by Rotax. The court emphasized that mere foreseeability of a product ending up in Texas is insufficient for establishing specific personal jurisdiction. Therefore, the case against Rotax was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. View "BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co. KG v. Shaik" on Justia Law

Hannah and Manish Mehta married in 2000 and had triplets in 2007. Hannah became the primary caregiver, especially for one child with significant medical needs. Manish filed for divorce in 2019. The trial court granted Hannah exclusive use of the marital home and ordered Manish to pay child support and temporary spousal support. Hannah later secured a paid position with a nonprofit. During the divorce proceedings, Manish expressed concerns about Hannah's ability to maintain the home financially. The trial court's final decree included child support and spousal maintenance for Hannah.The trial court appointed Hannah and Manish as joint managing conservators, with Hannah having the right to designate the children's primary residence. Manish was ordered to pay $2,760 per month in child support and $2,000 per month in spousal maintenance for thirty-six months. Manish requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, challenging the spousal maintenance award. The trial court did not provide additional findings, and Manish appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas affirmed the property division but reversed the spousal maintenance award, citing insufficient evidence that Hannah would lack sufficient property to meet her minimum reasonable needs.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the spousal maintenance award. The Supreme Court emphasized that while detailed financial evidence is ideal, courts should not disregard competent qualitative evidence. The court also noted that child-related expenses must be considered when assessing whether a spouse will have sufficient property post-divorce. The Supreme Court found legally sufficient evidence to support the trial court's award of spousal maintenance, including Hannah's role as the primary caregiver for a medically fragile child. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment in part and reinstated the trial court's spousal maintenance award. View "Mehta v. Mehta" on Justia Law

The case involves The Boeing Company and the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association (SWAPA). Boeing introduced the 737 MAX in 2011, which was marketed as more fuel-efficient and similar to previous models, requiring no additional pilot training. However, two crashes in 2018 and 2019 led to the grounding of the MAX. SWAPA, representing Southwest pilots, had agreed to fly the MAX but later sued Boeing, claiming Boeing interfered with their business relationship with Southwest and fraudulently induced them to fly the MAX without proper training.The trial court dismissed SWAPA's claims with prejudice, agreeing with Boeing that the Railway Labor Act preempted the claims and that SWAPA lacked standing. SWAPA appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas held that the Act did not preempt the claims, SWAPA lacked associational standing, but had standing to assert claims on its own behalf. The court also ruled that the assignments of claims from individual pilots to SWAPA were valid but did not retroactively grant standing in the original suit, leading to a partial dismissal without prejudice.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and concluded that the Railway Labor Act does not preempt SWAPA’s claims because their resolution does not require interpretation of the collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The court also held that the assignments of claims from pilots to SWAPA are not void against public policy, allowing SWAPA to pursue these claims as an assignee. The court affirmed the appellate court’s judgment, remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings on the claims SWAPA asserts on its own behalf. View "The Boeing Company v. Southwest Airlines Pilots Association" on Justia Law

Gary Perez and Matilde Torres, members of the Lipan-Apache Native American Church, believe that certain religious services must be conducted at a specific site within Brackenridge Park in San Antonio, Texas. The City of San Antonio planned improvements to the park, including tree removal and bird deterrence, which Perez and Torres argued would destroy their sacred worship space. They sued the City, claiming violations of their religious rights under the First Amendment, the Texas Constitution, the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and a new clause in the Texas Constitution that prohibits limiting religious services.The federal district court granted limited relief, allowing the Church access for certain ceremonies but did not enjoin the City's improvement plans. Perez appealed, and the Fifth Circuit initially affirmed the district court's decision but later withdrew its opinion and certified a question to the Supreme Court of Texas regarding the scope and force of the new Texas Religious Services Clause.The Supreme Court of Texas held that the Texas Religious Services Clause imposes a categorical bar on governmental limitations of religious services, regardless of the government's interest in the limitation. However, the Court also concluded that the scope of the clause is not unlimited and does not extend to the government's preservation and management of publicly owned lands. The Court emphasized that the clause does not require the government to provide or maintain natural elements necessary for religious services on public property. The case was remanded to the federal courts for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation. View "PEREZ v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO" on Justia Law

White Knight Development, LLC entered into a contract in 2015 to purchase land from Dick and Julie Simmons for $400,000. The contract included a "buy-back" provision allowing White Knight to require the Simmonses to repurchase the property if certain restrictions were extended. When the restrictions were extended in October 2016, White Knight invoked the buy-back provision, but the Simmonses refused to repurchase the property. White Knight sued for breach of contract and sought specific performance and damages related to the delay in performance.The trial court found that the Simmonses breached the contract and awarded White Knight specific performance, ordering the Simmonses to repurchase the property for $400,000. Additionally, the court awarded White Knight $308,136.14 in damages for various costs incurred due to the delay in performance. These costs included property taxes, loan interest, and other expenses related to the property and White Knight's business operations.The Court of Appeals for the Tenth District of Texas modified the judgment by deleting the $308,136.14 monetary award but otherwise affirmed the trial court's decision. The court acknowledged that monetary compensation could be awarded alongside specific performance in narrow circumstances but found no express statement by the trial court that the monetary award was equitable in nature.The Supreme Court of Texas held that while specific performance usually precludes a monetary award, there are narrow circumstances where both can be awarded. The court concluded that the trial court's findings supported an equitable monetary award to account for the delay in performance. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment in part and remanded the case for further review of the monetary award consistent with the principles announced. View "WHITE KNIGHT DEVELOPMENT, LLC v. SIMMONS" on Justia Law