Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

David W. Cromwell and Anadarko E&P Onshore, LLC are co-tenants in an oil-and-gas lease on land in Loving County, Texas. Cromwell obtained his interests in 2009 through two leases, one with Carmen Ferrer and one with the Tantalo Trust. Both leases contained habendum clauses that extended the lease terms as long as minerals were produced from the land. Anadarko, which already had a working interest and had drilled wells on the land, continued to produce minerals. Cromwell repeatedly sought to participate in production and enter a joint operating agreement with Anadarko, but Anadarko did not respond. Despite this, Anadarko sent Cromwell joint interest invoices and treated him as a working interest owner.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Anadarko, ruling that Cromwell's leases terminated at the end of their primary terms because he did not personally cause production. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas affirmed, holding that Cromwell was required to take action to cause production to keep his leases alive, based on the court's previous decision in Cimarex Energy Co. v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that the plain language of the habendum clauses did not require Cromwell to personally produce minerals to maintain his interests. The court emphasized that the leases did not specify who must produce the minerals and that production in commercial paying quantities had continuously occurred on the land. Therefore, Cromwell's leases did not terminate. The court disapproved of previous decisions that required lessees to personally produce minerals when the lease language did not explicitly state such a requirement. The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court to address the parties' remaining arguments. View "CROMWELL v. ANADARKO E&P ONSHORE, LLC" on Justia Law

Renaissance Medical Foundation (the Practice) is a nonprofit health organization certified by the Texas Medical Board. The Practice employed Dr. Michael Burke, a neurosurgeon, to provide medical services to its patients. Rebecca Lugo brought her daughter to Doctors Hospital at Renaissance for brain surgery performed by Dr. Burke. The surgery resulted in permanent neurological damage to Lugo’s daughter. Dr. Burke later expressed that a retractor used during the procedure migrated into the child’s brainstem, causing the injury. Lugo filed a lawsuit alleging negligence by Dr. Burke and sought to hold the Practice vicariously liable for his actions.The trial court denied the Practice’s motion for summary judgment, which argued that it could not be held vicariously liable for Dr. Burke’s negligence because it did not control the manner in which he provided medical care and that Dr. Burke was an independent contractor. The court concluded that Dr. Burke’s employment agreement granted the Practice sufficient control over him to trigger vicarious liability. The court authorized a permissive interlocutory appeal of the ruling.The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that Dr. Burke was an employee of the Practice under traditional common-law factors and was acting within the scope of his employment when the alleged negligence occurred. The Practice then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of Texas.The Supreme Court of Texas held that a nonprofit health organization may not be held vicariously liable if exercising its right of control regarding the alleged negligence would interfere with its employee physician’s exercise of independent medical judgment. The court concluded that the Practice did not conclusively demonstrate such interference and affirmed the denial of the Practice’s motion for summary judgment, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "RENAISSANCE MEDICAL FOUNDATION v. LUGO" on Justia Law

Ireille Williams-Bush, a 35-year-old woman, was taken to Medical City Arlington Hospital with symptoms indicative of a pulmonary embolism. However, she was diagnosed with a non-ST-elevated myocardial infarction and admitted under that diagnosis. The consulting cardiologist did not screen her for a pulmonary embolism. She was discharged in stable condition but died three days later from clotting in her heart and lungs. Her husband, Jared Bush, sued the hospital and associated physicians for negligence, focusing on the hospital's failure to have adequate protocols to ensure proper diagnosis and treatment.The trial court initially found the expert report by Dr. Cam Patterson, which supported Bush's claims, to be adequate. However, the Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas reversed this decision, deeming the report conclusory regarding causation and dismissing the claims against the hospital with prejudice. The appellate court held that the expert's opinions did not sufficiently explain how the hospital's policies could have influenced the medical decisions made by the physicians.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the expert report adequate. The court concluded that Dr. Patterson's report provided a fair summary of the standard of care, the hospital's breach, and the causal relationship between the breach and Williams-Bush's death. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "BUSH v. COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER OF ARLINGTON SUBSIDIARY, L.P." on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between American Midstream (Alabama Intrastate), LLC (AMID) and Rainbow Energy Marketing Corporation (Rainbow) over a contract (MAG-0005) for the transportation and balancing of natural gas. Rainbow had contracts to transport gas through two interconnected pipelines, the Transco and the Magnolia, and used the MAG-0005 to leverage AMID’s balancing flexibility. The contract allowed Rainbow to run imbalances, withdrawing gas without simultaneously supplying an equal amount, provided they resupplied by the end of each month. Disputes arose when Transco began limiting imbalances more strictly, leading to AMID curtailing Rainbow’s nominations on several occasions.The trial court found in favor of Rainbow on all its claims, including breach of contract, repudiation, fraud, fraudulent inducement, and negligent misrepresentation, awarding over $6 million in lost profits. The court interpreted Section 9.1 of the MAG-0005 as excusing AMID’s performance only under specific conditions involving scheduled and physical imbalances. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s decision, agreeing with its interpretation of the contract and the award of damages.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that the trial court had erroneously inserted language into Section 9.1 of the MAG-0005. The correct interpretation of Section 9.1 excused AMID from providing balancing services on any day that Transco required AMID or Rainbow to limit imbalances attributable to Rainbow, without distinguishing between types of imbalances. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' decisions, rendered judgment for AMID on Rainbow’s contract-repudiation and tort claims, and remanded for a new trial on the breach-of-contract claims to determine if Transco mandates excused AMID’s performance on the days in question. View "AMERICAN MIDSTREAM (ALABAMA INTRASTATE), LLC v. RAINBOW ENERGY MARKETING CORPORATION" on Justia Law

Oljine Noguez and Manuel Zepeda Mendoza were investigated for their alleged involvement in an opioid trafficking operation. Following the investigation, the State of Texas seized their bank accounts and cash, initiating four civil-forfeiture actions. The State alleged that the funds were contraband related to the trafficking operation, attaching a sworn declaration and affidavit from the investigating officer, Bryan Bacon, to each notice of seizure. Nearly two years later, the Claimants filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, arguing that the State had no evidence to support its claims. The State responded but did not attach any exhibits, instead referencing Officer Bacon’s affidavit.The trial court considered the motion and granted summary judgment for the Claimants, noting that the State did not attach the affidavit to its response. The State then filed a motion for leave to file a response with the affidavit attached, which the trial court denied, finalizing its order granting summary judgment to the Claimants. The State appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the State failed to meet its burden by not attaching the affidavit and not sufficiently directing the trial court to specific portions of the affidavit.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i) does not require the attachment of previously filed summary judgment evidence. The Court found that the State’s response sufficiently pointed out and discussed the evidence, reversing the Court of Appeals’ judgment. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, instructing the trial court to reconsider the no-evidence motion in light of the opinion that previously filed evidence referenced in a response can be considered without being attached. View "THE STATE OF TEXAS v. THREE THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY-FOUR DOLLARS AND TWENTY-EIGHT CENTS U.S. CURRENCY ($3,774.28)" on Justia Law

Pamela McKenzie was shopping at a Walgreens in Houston in 2019 when she was detained on suspicion of shoplifting. A Walgreens employee called the police, suspecting McKenzie was the same person who had stolen from the store earlier that day. After reviewing surveillance footage, the police determined McKenzie was not the thief and released her. McKenzie claimed that other Walgreens employees had agreed she was not the thief, but the employee called the police anyway. She sued Walgreens for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, gross negligence, respondeat superior liability for employee negligence, and negligent hiring, training, and supervision (NHTS).The trial court denied Walgreens' motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), which allows for early dismissal of legal actions based on the exercise of free speech. A divided Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that the trial court erred by not dismissing McKenzie’s claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, gross negligence, and vicarious liability for employee negligence. However, it held that the NHTS claim was not subject to dismissal under the TCPA because it was not entirely based on the employee’s exercise of free speech rights.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that the TCPA does apply to McKenzie’s NHTS claim. The court concluded that McKenzie failed to meet her evidentiary burden to avoid dismissal, as she did not provide clear and specific evidence for each essential element of her NHTS claim. Consequently, the court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment in part and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, specifically for the dismissal of McKenzie’s NHTS claim. The remainder of the Court of Appeals' judgment was left undisturbed. View "WALGREENS v. MCKENZIE" on Justia Law

Myers-Woodward, LLC (Myers) owns 160 acres in Matagorda County, Texas. In 1947, Myers’s predecessors retained the surface estate but transferred the mineral estate to the predecessor of Underground Services Markham, LLC and United Brine Pipeline Company, LLC (collectively, USM). The mineral deed granted USM’s predecessor an interest in all oil, gas, and other minerals on the land, along with rights necessary for mining and transporting these minerals. In 2008, USM acquired all of Texas Brine Company’s interest in the salt on the property. Disputes arose over the ownership of caverns created by salt mining and the calculation of royalties owed to Myers.The district court ruled that USM owned the subsurface caverns created by its salt mining activities but denied USM’s request to use the caverns for storing hydrocarbons produced off-site. The court agreed with Myers that USM could only use the land for purposes specified in the 1947 deed. Regarding royalties, the district court ruled that Myers was entitled to a one-eighth royalty based on the market value of the salt at the point of production, which amounted to $258,850.41. Myers appealed, challenging the royalty calculation and the ownership of the caverns. USM cross-appealed, contesting the limitation on its use of the caverns.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision that Myers, as the surface estate owner, retains ownership of the empty spaces within the salt formations. The court held that the mineral estate does not include ownership of the empty spaces created by salt mining. However, the court reversed the lower courts’ calculation of Myers’s royalty payments, ruling that Myers is entitled to an in-kind royalty of one-eighth of the net proceeds from the sale of the salt. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "MYERS-WOODWARD, LLC v. UNDERGROUND SERVICES MARKHAM, LLC" on Justia Law

Cindy Thompson, individually and as heir of Charles Thompson, and CC & T Investments, LLC, sought to void a default judgment and a subsequent purchaser’s deed, claiming the taxing authorities failed to properly serve her with suit papers, leading to foreclosure of tax liens. The subsequent purchaser, Mae Landry, argued that Thompson had notice of the property’s sale years before the collateral attack.The trial court sustained the collateral attack, setting aside the default judgment and tax sale. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reversed, holding that fact issues exist regarding the adequacy of service in the underlying tax suit. The subsequent purchaser petitioned for review, asserting that the owner’s notice of the property’s sale years earlier defeats her claim as a matter of law.The Supreme Court of Texas held that a property owner may not set aside a subsequent property purchase on due process grounds if the owner obtained notice of the default judgment or the property’s sale during the statutory limitations and redemption period. Such an owner has notice of any due process violation in time to assert a legal remedy. Additionally, a subsequent purchaser may advance equitable defenses against a collateral attack if a prior owner unreasonably delays, to the current owner’s detriment, in suing to quiet title after obtaining notice of the judgment or the property’s sale. However, the evidence in this case fails to conclusively demonstrate the date of such notice.The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "THOMPSON v. LANDRY" on Justia Law

Two property owners in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) of College Station, Texas, challenged city ordinances regulating off-premise signage and driveway construction. They argued that these regulations, imposed without granting them the right to vote in city elections, violated the Texas Constitution's requirement for a "republican form of government." The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the ordinances were void and unenforceable.The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice, agreeing with the City that the form of local government is a political question for the legislature, not the courts. The plaintiffs appealed, but while the appeal was pending, the legislature amended the law to allow ETJ residents to unilaterally opt out of a city's ETJ. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth District of Texas affirmed the trial court's dismissal, not addressing the new statutory opt-out provision.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and determined that the legislative change provided a nonjudicial remedy that could moot the plaintiffs' constitutional claims. The court vacated the lower court judgments and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to abate the proceedings, allowing the plaintiffs a reasonable opportunity to complete the opt-out process. The court emphasized the importance of judicial restraint and constitutional avoidance, noting that the new law offered a means of relief that should be pursued before addressing broader constitutional questions. View "ELLIOTT v. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS" on Justia Law

Sadok Ferchichi and Martina Coronado were involved in a motor vehicle collision with Crystal Krueger, who was driving a vehicle owned by Whataburger Restaurants LLC. Ferchichi sued Krueger and Whataburger for negligence. During mediation, Whataburger's counsel revealed the existence of a surveillance video of the plaintiffs, which they refused to share outside of mediation. Ferchichi filed a motion to compel the video and for sanctions. Whataburger responded with a motion to dismiss the sanctions request under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA).The trial court denied Whataburger's TCPA motion, but the Fourth Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the motion for sanctions was a "legal action" under the TCPA and that Ferchichi failed to establish a prima facie case for the sanctions request. The court remanded the case to the trial court to award Whataburger its costs and attorney’s fees and to consider sanctions against Ferchichi.In a separate case, Haven at Thorpe Lane, a student-housing complex, was sued by students for fraud and deceptive trade practices. Haven filed a motion to compel discovery from two mothers of the plaintiffs, who had created a Facebook group criticizing Haven. The mothers filed a TCPA motion to dismiss Haven's motion to compel. The trial court denied the TCPA motion, but the Third Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the motion to compel was a "legal action" under the TCPA and that Haven failed to establish a prima facie case.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed both cases and held that motions to compel and for sanctions are not "legal actions" under the TCPA. Therefore, the TCPA does not apply. The court reversed the judgments of the courts of appeals and remanded both cases to the respective trial courts for further proceedings. View "HAVEN AT THORPE LANE, LLC v. PATE" on Justia Law