Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court conditionally granted a writ of mandamus sought by real parties in interest (the Paus) in this action brought against Relators (collectively, Auburn Creek) seeking $33 million in damages allegedly caused by carbon-monoxide exposure in a dwelling the Paus leased from Auburn Creek, holding that the trial court clearly abused its discretion in denying Auburn Creek's motion to compel.Auburn Creek filed a motion to compel a neuropsychological exam for each of the Pau family members. The trial court denied the motion with prejudice on the grounds that the scope of the exams was not sufficiently circumscribed and subsequently denied Auburn Creek's request for mandamus relief. The Supreme Court conditionally granted relief, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that Auburn Creek had not shown good cause for the exams. View "In re Auburn Creek Limited Partnership" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment below and remanded this case for further proceedings that will allow the district court to render a judgment that complies with the periodic-payments statute, holding that the district court erred in how it structured the periodic payments in this case.A.M.A. was diagnosed with cerebral palsy after being deprived of oxygen during extended periods during his mother's labor. A jury awarded future healthcare expenses in the amount of almost $10,000,000. The trial judge ordered the award structured into periodic payments. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that there was nothing in the evidence that justified the way the trial court ordered the periodic payments to be structured. View "Columbia Valley Healthcare System, L.P. v. A.M.A." on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals the Supreme Court denied Respondents' request to withdraw the Chief Justice's certification letter and dismiss the underlying petitions as improvidently granted, holding that the Governor's appointment of two substitute justices to participate in the determination of these cases did not violate due process or due course of law protections.After two of the Supreme Court's nine justices voluntarily recused themselves from the case, the Chief Justice requested that the Governor appoint two qualified justices or judges to participate in the Court's determination of these appeals. Respondents objected, arguing that allowing the Governor to appoint justices would create due process and ethical problems where the State was not a party. The Supreme Court denied Respondents' requests to dismiss the petitions as improvidently granted, holding (1) there was no serious risk of actual bias under Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009); and (2) the Governor's appointment of the two substitute justices did not taint the commissioned justices with the appearance of partiality or impropriety under the Texas ethical rules. View "State v. Audi Aktiengesellschaft" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified as affirmed the decision of the court of appeals to vacate the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the case, holding that the judgment must be modified to vacate the trial court's judgment and dismiss the case.In this real property dispute, the Mortgagee set a foreclosure sale and then filed this suit seeking temporary and permanent injunctive and declaratory relief. The trial court entered a temporary restraining order one day before the scheduled foreclosure sale and then granted summary judgment for the Mortgagee. Before Appellant appealed, the Mortgagee posted the property for foreclosure sale and then purchased it at the sale. When Appellant appealed, the court of appeals dismissed the appeal, concluding that Appellant's loss of ownership of the property rendered the appeal moot. The Supreme Court modified as affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly concluded that dismissal was required but should have vacated the trial court's judgment and dismissed the case. View "Alsobrook v. MTGLQ Investors, LP" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and court of appeals holding that the law grants authority to decide whether a statutory probate court judge receives a supplemental salary for serving as the local administrative statutory probate court judge to the statutory probate court judge, not the county commissioners court, holding that the lower courts erred.Plaintiff, judge of the Galveston County statutory probate court and the county's local administrative statutory probate court judge, filed this suit against the commissioners court's members in their official capacities, arguing that Defendants abused their discretion by acting arbitrarily and capriciously in striking from the county budget Plaintiff's supplemental salary for her services as the local administrative statutory probate judge. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Texas law grants commissioners the authority to decide whether to pay Plaintiff a supplemental salary; and (2) Plaintiff failed to establish any basis to find that the commissioners abused that discretion. View "Henry v. Sullivan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court conditionally granted relief in this mandamus proceeding concerning a premarital agreement to resolve disputes by binding arbitration under religious law, holding that the trial court erred by ordering arbitration before determining whether the agreement was valid and enforceable, as required by Tex. Fam. Code 6.6015 and 153.00715.In 2008 the parties married. In connection with their marriage, they signed a document entitled "Islamic Pre-Nuptial Agreement" providing that conflicts arising between the parties would be resolved according to Islamic law in a Muslim court or a three-person panel. After Wife sued for divorce, Husband moved to enforce the agreement. The trial court stayed proceedings pending arbitration, and the court of appeals denied Wife's request for mandamus relief. The Supreme Court conditionally granted relief, holding that the trial court erred in ordering arbitration without first determining the validity and enforceability of the agreement. View "In re Ayad" on Justia Law

In this good Samaritan case, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing in part the order of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant in this wrongful death and survival action, holding that the court of appeals erred in reversing summary judgment for Defendant.At issue was whether Dawn Hancock had a duty to exercise reasonable care as to Jeffrey Landrum, who was crushed by a portable storage unit. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendant. The court of appeals reversed in part, ruling (1) because Hancock participated in the unloading of the storage unit, she undertook a duty to protect Landrum from dangers that an ordinarily prudent person could foresee were a likely result of the situation; and (2) a fact issue remained as to whether Dawn failed to continue to render Landrum assistance. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that any duty imposed on Dawn by undertaking to help Landrum ended when the unloading process was completed. View "Three Aces Towing, Inc. v. Landrum" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Tyler and dismissing this personal injury action arising under the Texas Tort Claims Act on the grounds that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, holding that the trial court's jurisdiction was secure.Plaintiff was allegedly injured when he was driving a truck for his employer and an improperly secured piece of lumber flew off a truck owned by the City entered the driver side window and struck Plaintiff in the head. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the City, concluding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because Plaintiff failed timely to provide the City with notice of his claim. View "Leach v. City of Tyler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court for a pioneering cardiovascular surgeon in this dispute between the surgeon and the hospital where he formerly worked, holding that the evidence was not legally sufficient to support the jury's award.Plaintiff and his professional association sued Defendant for engaging in a retaliatory "whisper campaign" against him after he left Defendant for a new rival hospital, alleging illegal restraint of trade (anticompetition claims), tortious interference with prospective business relations, defamation, and business disparagement. The jury rejected Plaintiff's anticompetition claims but found that Defendant had defamed Plaintiff and disparaged his professional association. Defendant appealed, arguing that no evidence supported the jury's defamation and disparagement findings. The court of appeals affirmed based on its interpretation of the jury charge. The Supreme Court reversed and rendered a take-nothing judgment for Defendant, holding that no evidence supported the jury's award in this case. View "Memorial Hermann Health System v. Gomez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied an emergency mandamus action sought by Republican Party candidates in the November 2022 general election to remove their Libertarian Party opponents for failure to pay a statutory filing fee, holding that the petition was untimely.The Supreme Court denied the Republican's petition asserting that the Texas Election Code requires exclusion of the Libertarian candidates from the ballot without resolving he merits of the parties' dispute because the petition did not comport with recent instruction that "invoking judicial authority in the election context requires unusual dispatch." The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that the petition did not comport with recent instruction that "invoking judicial authority in the election context requires unusual dispatch." View "In re Self" on Justia Law