Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Dallas County sued state officials in Travis County, alleging that the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) failed to take custody of criminal defendants adjudicated incompetent to stand trial, imposing costs on the County. The district court denied the State’s plea to the jurisdiction, leading to an appeal in the Third Court of Appeals. However, due to legislative changes, this appeal is set to be transferred to the newly created Fifteenth Court of Appeals, which will have exclusive jurisdiction over certain state-related cases.The Third Court of Appeals could not resolve the appeal before its mandatory transfer to the Fifteenth Court. Dallas County preferred to remain in the Third Court and petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas to bar the transfer and declare the legislation creating the Fifteenth Court unconstitutional. The County argued that the Fifteenth Court’s statewide jurisdiction, its jurisdictional scope, and the appointment process for its justices were unconstitutional.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that it had jurisdiction over Dallas County’s petition. The Court concluded that the creation of the Fifteenth Court was constitutional. It found that the Texas Constitution allows the legislature substantial discretion in creating courts and defining their jurisdiction. The Court also held that the appointment process for the Fifteenth Court’s justices, who will be appointed initially and then elected in the next general election, was constitutional. Consequently, the Court denied Dallas County’s request for relief, meaning the appeal must be transferred to the Fifteenth Court as scheduled. View "IN RE DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AND BROWN" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed a case involving a new law that prohibits certain medical treatments for children if administered for the purpose of transitioning a child's biological sex or affirming the child's perception of their sex if it is inconsistent with their biological sex. Several parents of children with gender dysphoria, along with physicians and groups that would be affected by the law, sued to enjoin its enforcement, alleging that it is facially unconstitutional. The trial court concluded that the law likely violates the Texas Constitution and temporarily enjoined the law's enforcement.The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed with the trial court's decision. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a probable right to relief on their claims that the prohibition of certain treatments for children suffering from gender dysphoria violates the Texas Constitution. The court emphasized that while parents have a fundamental interest in directing the care, custody, and control of their children, this interest is not absolute. The court concluded that the Legislature made a permissible, rational policy choice to limit the types of available medical procedures for children, particularly in light of the relative nascency of both gender dysphoria and its various modes of treatment. The court also concluded that the law does not unconstitutionally deprive parents of their rights or physicians or health care providers of an alleged property right in their medical licenses or claimed right to occupational freedom. The court further concluded that the law does not unconstitutionally deny or abridge equality under the law because of sex or any other characteristic asserted by plaintiffs. The court therefore reversed and vacated the trial court's order. View "STATE OF TEXAS v. LOE" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over a provision in a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Austin and the Austin Firefighters Association. The provision, known as Article 10, grants 5,600 hours of "Association Business Leave" (ABL) annually for firefighters to conduct union-related activities. The petitioners, including the State of Texas and several individuals, argued that Article 10 violates the "Gift Clauses" of the Texas Constitution, which prohibit governmental entities from making gifts of public resources to private parties. They contended that the ABL provision improperly benefits the union by allowing firefighters to use paid time off for union activities, some of which they alleged were misused for improper purposes.The case was initially dismissed under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), with the trial court granting relief to the Association, including the award of fees and sanctions. On appeal, the trial court's findings of fact went unchallenged, and the focus was primarily on whether the agreement itself violated the Gift Clauses.The Supreme Court of Texas held that Article 10 does not violate the Gift Clauses. The court found that the provision is not a gratuitous gift but brings a public benefit, serves a legitimate public purpose, and the government retains control over the funds to ensure that the public purpose is achieved. The court emphasized that the ABL must be used for activities that directly support the mission of the Fire Department or the Association and are consistent with the Association’s purposes. The court also reversed the trial court's order granting the Association's TCPA motion to dismiss and its award of sanctions and fees against the original plaintiffs. View "BORGELT v. AUSTIN FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, IAFF LOCAL 975" on Justia Law

The case involves Dianne Hensley, a justice of the peace in Texas, who announced that due to her religious beliefs, she would not perform weddings for same-sex couples but would refer them to others who would. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued her a public warning for casting doubt on her capacity to act impartially due to the person's sexual orientation, in violation of Canon 4A(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Hensley did not appeal this warning to a Special Court of Review (SCR) but instead sued the Commission and its members and officers for violating the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TRFRA) and her right to freedom of speech under Article I, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution. The trial court dismissed her claims for lack of jurisdiction, and the court of appeals affirmed.The Supreme Court of Texas held that Hensley's suit was not barred by her decision not to appeal the Commission’s Public Warning or by sovereign immunity. The court affirmed the part of the court of appeals’ judgment dismissing one of Hensley's declaratory requests for lack of jurisdiction, reversed the remainder of the judgment, and remanded to the court of appeals to address the remaining issues on appeal. The court found that the SCR could not have finally decided whether Hensley is entitled to the relief sought in this case or awarded the relief TRFRA provides to successful claimants. View "HENSLEY v. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Mary Alice Keyes and Sean Leo Nadeau, who are the owners and agents of MonoCoque Diversified Interests, LLC, and David Weller, who provides aviation consulting services through his company, IntegriTech Advisors, LLC. Weller was discussing a potential employment relationship with MonoCoque. After several discussions and email exchanges outlining the agreed terms, Weller accepted MonoCoque’s offer and began working for them. However, disagreements arose over the terms of Weller's compensation, leading to Weller's resignation. Weller and IntegriTech sued MonoCoque, Keyes, and Nadeau, asserting various fraud claims and a Texas Securities Act claim against all three defendants.The defendants argued that they were shielded from liability by Section 21.223 of the Texas Business Organizations Code because they were acting as agents of the company and there was no evidence that they were seeking a direct personal benefit. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the fraud claims. On appeal, the court of appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that Section 21.223 does not abrogate the common law principle that individuals are directly liable for their own tortious conduct, even if committed in the course and scope of their employment.The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. The court held that Section 21.223 does not limit an individual’s liability under the common law for tortious acts allegedly committed while acting as a corporate officer or agent, even when the individual is also a shareholder or member. The court concluded that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the fraud claims against Keyes and Nadeau and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "KEYES v. WELLER" on Justia Law

The case involves a products liability action against American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) for an alleged negligent design of a seat-belt system in a 2011 Honda Odyssey. The plaintiff, Sarah Milburn, was severely injured in a car accident while riding in an Uber vehicle, a 2011 Honda Odyssey. Milburn was seated in the third-row middle seat, which had a ceiling-mounted detachable Type 2 anchor system for the seat belt. Milburn fastened her seat belt incorrectly, leaving her lap unbelted. The accident resulted in Milburn becoming a quadriplegic.The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Milburn based on the jury's verdict, and the court of appeals affirmed. The court of appeals held that legally sufficient evidence supported the jury’s findings that the presumption of nonliability applied and that the presumption was rebutted.The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals’ judgment. The court held that the presumption of nonliability applied as a matter of law because the 2011 Odyssey’s design complied with mandatory federal safety standards that were applicable to the Odyssey at the time of manufacture and governed the product risk that allegedly caused harm. The court further held that the presumption was not rebutted, as no evidence supports the jury’s finding that the federal safety standards failed to adequately protect the public from unreasonable risks of injury. Therefore, the court rendered a take-nothing judgment for Honda. View "AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. v. MILBURN" on Justia Law

The case involves Ammonite Oil & Gas Corporation (Ammonite) and the Railroad Commission of Texas and EOG Resources, Inc. (EOG). Ammonite leases mineral rights beneath a riverbed from the State of Texas. EOG leases the minerals on the land adjoining the river on both sides. All the minerals in the area lie in a common subsurface reservoir. EOG's wells, however, do not reach the minerals beneath the riverbed. Ammonite argued that without pooling, its minerals are left stranded. Ammonite applied to the Railroad Commission for forced pooling under the Texas Mineral Interest Pooling Act (MIPA).The Railroad Commission rejected Ammonite's applications to force-pool the minerals beneath the river—which are not being produced—with those beside it—which are. The lower courts affirmed the Commission’s order. The Supreme Court of Texas also affirmed the lower courts' decisions but for different reasons than the court of appeals gave.The Supreme Court of Texas held that the Commission’s conclusion that “Ammonite failed to make a fair and reasonable offer to voluntarily pool as required by [MIPA Section] 102.013” is reasonable. The court also held that Ammonite has failed to show that forced pooling of its acreage with EOG’s wells is necessary to prevent its minerals from ultimately being lost. The court concluded that Ammonite applied for a share of EOG’s revenue without contributing to it and that the Commission’s conclusion that forced pooling would not prevent waste or protect correlative rights is not unreasonable. View "AMMONITE OIL & GAS CORPORATION v. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS" on Justia Law

The case involves Angela Horton and Kevin Houser, who sued the Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KC Southern) for the wrongful death of their mother. They alleged that KC Southern negligently maintained a railroad crossing by raising the crossing grade over time to form a “humped crossing” and by failing to replace a missing yield sign. The jury found both parties negligently caused the accident and assigned equal responsibility to each. The trial court awarded Horton fifty percent of the damages. The court of appeals reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that federal law preempts a negligence claim based on the humped crossing, but supports a finding that the missing yield sign proximately caused the accident.The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment, but on different grounds. The court held that federal law does not preempt the humped-crossing claim and that no evidence supports the jury’s finding that the absence of the yield sign proximately caused the accident. The court concluded that only one of the two allegations could support the jury’s negligence finding, and it could not be certain which of the two allegations the jury relied on. Therefore, the court agreed with the court of appeals that the trial court’s use of a broad-form question to submit the negligence claim constituted harmful error and that a new trial is required. However, the court remanded for a new trial on the humped-crossing allegation rather than on the missing-yield-sign allegation. After further review, the court reversed its previous decision and reinstated the trial court’s judgment, concluding that the submission of the broad-form question did not constitute harmful error. View "HORTON v. THE KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY" on Justia Law

In two consolidated property tax disputes, Oncor Electric Delivery Company NTU, LLC sought a multimillion-dollar reduction in the total values of certain electric transmission lines in the 2019 certified appraisal rolls for the Wilbarger County Appraisal District and Mills Central Appraisal District. Oncor’s predecessor had agreed to the lines’ value in each county to settle its protests of the Districts’ initial appraised values, but Oncor now contends that these agreements are void due to mutual mistake.Previously, Oncor filed unsuccessful motions for correction of the appraisal rolls with each County Appraisal Review Board (ARB) and then sued in district court in Wilbarger and Mills Counties. The trial and appellate courts below provided conflicting answers on whether questions regarding the effect of a Section 1.111(e) agreement—such as its validity and scope—are relevant to a trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over a suit for judicial review under Section 42.01 of the Tax Code.The Supreme Court of Texas held that the resolution of such questions does not implicate jurisdiction and remanded the cases to the trial courts for further proceedings. The court did not reach the merits of the parties’ disputes about whether Oncor has identified errors eligible for correction under Sections 25.25(c) or (d) of the Tax Code, whether any such errors fall within the scope of the parties’ Section 1.111(e) settlement agreements, and whether the doctrine of mutual mistake is an available defense to such agreements. View "MILLS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT v. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY NTU LLC" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over the interpretation of a statute that regulates healthcare providers participating in the federal Medicaid program. The State of Texas, acting through the Attorney General, sought to enforce a statute that imposes penalties on a provider who submits a claim for payment and knowingly fails to indicate the type of professional license and the identification number of the person who actually provided the service. The defendant, a dentist, argued that the statute only applies if a claim fails to indicate both the license type and the identification number of the actual provider.Previously, the trial court granted the State's motion for partial summary judgment and denied the defendant's motion. The court rendered a final judgment awarding the State more than $16,500,000. The defendant appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, except for the amount of attorney’s fees and expenses.The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court agreed with the defendant's interpretation of the statute. The court held that the statute applies only if a claim fails to indicate both the license type and the identification number of the actual provider. The court found that the 1,842 claims at issue did indicate the actual providers’ license type, so they did not constitute an unlawful act under the statute. The court rendered judgment in the dentist’s favor. View "MALOUF v. THE STATE OF TEXAS EX RELS. ELLIS AND CASTILLO" on Justia Law