Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that the Town of Westlake, a general-law municipality in which Builder Recovery Services, LLC (BRS), which hauled trash away from construction sites, operated, lacked the authority to impose a percentage-of-revenue license fee on companies like BRS.The Town enacted an ordinance that required trash haulers like BRS to obtain a license to operate in the Town. After the ordinance was adopted the Town cited BRS for operating without a lawsuit in violation of the ordinance. BRS brought this suitm, arguing that BRS lacked statutory authority to require BRS to obtain the license. The district court rejected most of BRS's arguments, and the court of appeals affirmed the portions of the judgment in favor of the Town. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Town of Westlake lacked authority as a general-law municipality to impose a percentage-of-revenue licensing fee on construction trash-hauling companies like BRS. View "Builder Recovery Services, LLC v. Town of Westlake" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's (TCEQ) general jurisdiction over water and water rights, including the issuance of water rights permits and water rights adjudication, does not include the authority to adjudicate conflicting claims to ownership of surface-water rights.Plaintiff brought this complaint seeking declarations that it was the sole owner of certain surface-water rights. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that TCEQ has exclusive original jurisdiction to determine water-ownership rights. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that TCEQ lacks jurisdiction to decide conflicting claims of ownership to surface-water rights and that the adjudication of such claims is for the courts. View "Pape Partners, Ltd. v. DRR Family Properties LP" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that the "procuring-cause doctrine" did not apply to the facts of this case, holding that the procuring-cause doctrine applied to the parties' contractual relationship.If a seller agrees to pay sales commissions to a broker or other agent and their contract says nothing more than that commissions will be paid for sales, Texas law applies a default rule called the procuring-cause doctrine. When the seller refused to pay the broker in this case commissions on sales that were finalized after his termination, the broker sued the seller for breach of contract. The jury found for the broker. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the procuring-cause doctrine applied to the contractual relationship in this case. View "Pesthuis v. Baylor Miraca Genetics Laboratories, LLC" on Justia Law

In this case arising out of a construction contract dispute involving competing claims of breach between the owner and the contractor, the Supreme Court reversed in part the court of appeals' judgment affirming the portion of the trial court's judgment awarding damages to the owner but reversing as to the contractor, holding that the judgment awarding certain expenses to the owner could not stand.The jury found that both the owner and the contractor breached the contract and awarded damages as to both parties. At issue was whether the owner's entitlement to recover contract damages associated with a termination of the contractor for default hinged on strict compliance with the written-notice conditions precedent to such recovery, whether sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of compliance, and whether a contractual provision governing consequential damages was liability waiver or a covenant not to sue. The Supreme Court held (1) when a contract mandates written notice, a writing is a necessary part of complying with contractual notice conditions, substantially or otherwise; (2) because the owner failed to provide the requisite written notices to be entitled to recover expenses associated with a termination for default, the judgment awarding them to the owner could not stand; and (3) the contract did not contain a covenant not to sue for consequential damages. View "James Construction Group, LLC v. Westlake Chemical Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Petitioner's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that Petitioner's filing error did not deprive the court of appeals of subject matter jurisdiction.Petitioner brought multiple wrongful death and survival claims against several defendants. The trial court granted Respondents' motion for a take-nothing judgment. An ensuing severance transformed the interlocutory summary judgment into a final and appealable judgment, commencing the thirty-day period to file a notice of appeal. Petitioner then moved for a new trial. At issue was whether Petitioner's ensuing notice of appeal was timely, which depended on whether Petitioner's motion for new trial was effective. The court of appeals held that the motion for new trial was ineffective because Petitioner filed it under the wrong case number and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Petitioner's motion for new trial effectively extended the trial court's plenary power and, correspondingly, the appellate timelines; and (2) therefore, the appeal was timely. View "Mitschke v. Borromeo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court affirming a verdict for the family of a teenager who committed suicide after seeking treatment for depression from her pediatric healthcare providers, holding that the testimony did not establish the necessary but-for causation required by precedent.The expert testimony at trial established negligence on the part of the teen's medical providers but did not establish that, but for the negligence, the teen would not have committed suicide. Plaintiffs sued their daughter's providers for negligence and gross negligence. The jury found that certain providers were liable, and the trial court awarded $1.285 million to Plaintiffs. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was no evidence that the providers' care proximately caused the teen's suicide. View "Pediatrics Cool Care v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the current owners of certain property, holding that Elizabeth Mitchell's due process rights were violated in a 1999 suit in which the court entered a default judgment foreclosing a tax lien on Elizabeth's interest.After Elizabeth died in 2009, her heirs (Petitioners) brought suit to declare void the 1999 default judgment, alleging the judgment violated Elizabeth's constitutional right to procedural due process because Elizabeth was not properly served with notice of the underlying foreclosure suit. Respondents, the current owners of the property who purchased it at a tax sale or later acquired an interest in it, argued that the publicly recorded warranty deeds and county tax records could not be considered in this collateral attack. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment for Respondents. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) information available in relevant public records can be considered in a collateral attack on a judgment that alleges constitutional due process violations; and (2) Petitioners established that Elizabeth was not properly served in the 1999 suit, and therefore, the court in the tax foreclosure suit did not acquire personal jurisdiction over Elizabeth. View "Mitchell v. MAP Resources, Inc." on Justia Law

In this dispute over a family ranch the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals reversing in part the district court's rejection of Plaintiffs' claims on summary judgment, holding that Kenneth Berry's claims were properly rejected by the district court but that Chelsea Berry's claims should have been allowed to proceed.Kenneth and his daughter Chelsea filed this suit alleging that Defendants did not pay for the use of the ranch and that a lease between the parties was impermissibly long. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants on all claims. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of Chelsea's claims and some of Kenneth's claims but reversed as to Kenneth on a statute of limitations issue. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) properly disposed of all of Kenneth's claims; but (2) erred in dismissing Chelsea's claims. View "Berry v. Berry" on Justia Law

In this consolidated appeal involving unrelated respondents who were acquitted of driving while intoxicated (DWI), the Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the lower courts, holding that the exception to expunction did not apply in this case.Both respondents sought expunction of the records relating to their arrests, and both had a previous DWI conviction from at least three years before the arrest that led to acquittal. Separate trial courts ordered expunction of each respondent's records. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that both respondents established their entitlement to expunction and that no exception applied. View "Ex parte K.T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court against Landlord and in favor of the City of Baytown in this dispute over unpaid utility bills, holding that Landlord's challenge to the City's enforcement action failed to show the intentional taking or damage for public use necessary to establish a constitutional right to compensation.In this action, Landlord alleging that the City's withholding of utility service to collect payment resulted in the loss of a tenant and the disrepair of his property and was a taking in violation of the state or federal constitution. The trial court concluded that Landlord did not establish an intentional taking of private property for public use. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the City's utility enforcement actions did not establish a regulatory taking of private property as a matter of law. View "City of Baytown v. Schrock" on Justia Law