Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A suspected shoplifter with an outstanding arrest warrant shot two police officers at a retail store, killing one and injuring the other. The officers were attempting to arrest the suspect at the request of an off-duty officer working as a security guard for the retailer. The deceased officer's parents and the injured officer sued the security guard, the retailer, and the security company.The trial court dismissed the claims against the security guard under the Tort Claims Act, finding his actions were within the scope of his employment as a police officer. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of the retailer and the security company. The plaintiffs appealed.The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas reversed in part, holding that a jury could find the security guard's conduct before the warrant check was outside the scope of his police duties. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims based on the warrant check and subsequent conduct but found fact issues precluded summary judgment on other claims against the retailer.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that the security guard's conduct was within the scope of his employment as a police officer, entitling him to dismissal under the Tort Claims Act. The court also adopted the public-safety officer's rule, limiting the duties owed to officers injured by the negligence that necessitated their response. Applying this rule, the court found no evidence that the retailer breached its duty to warn the officers of a known, dangerous condition. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and reinstated the trial court's judgment dismissing the claims against the security guard and granting summary judgment for the other defendants. View "SEWARD v. SANTANDER" on Justia Law

Two Texas lawyers, Michael A. Pohl and Robert Ammons, represented out-of-state clients in personal injury cases filed outside Texas. The clients, from Louisiana and Arkansas, alleged that they were solicited by individuals on behalf of the lawyers, which led to the signing of legal-services contracts. The clients later sued the lawyers in Texas, seeking to void the contracts under Texas Government Code Section 82.0651(a), which allows clients to void contracts procured through barratry, and to recover fees and penalties.The trial court dismissed all claims, granting summary judgment in favor of the lawyers. The clients appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that Section 82.0651(a) applied because part of the lawyers' conduct occurred in Texas. The court also rejected the lawyers' arguments regarding limitations and res judicata and allowed Reese's intervention in the case.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that Section 82.0651(a) does not extend to the nonresident clients' claims because the core conduct targeted by the statute—solicitation of a legal-services contract through barratry—occurred outside Texas. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment to the extent it allowed the clients to proceed with their claims under Section 82.0651(a) and rendered judgment that they take nothing on those claims. However, the court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment regarding the breach of fiduciary duty claims and remanded those claims to the trial court for further proceedings. View "POHL v. CHEATHAM" on Justia Law

A builder, PDT Holdings, Inc. and Phillip Thompson Homes, Inc., sought to construct a duplex townhome in Dallas. They met with city officials multiple times to verify applicable restrictions and were informed of a 36-foot maximum building height limit. The builder submitted a construction plan for a 36-foot-high duplex, which the city approved. During construction, the city issued a stop-work order due to a parapet wall exceeding the height limit, which the builder corrected. Later, the city issued another stop-work order, citing a violation of the residential-proximity-slope (RPS) ordinance, which limited the height to 26 feet. Despite this, the city lifted the stop-work order, allowing the builder to complete the duplex.The builder applied for a variance from the Board of Adjustment (BOA) but was denied. They then sued the city, seeking to estop it from enforcing the RPS ordinance. The trial court ruled in favor of the builder, finding that the city was estopped from enforcing the ordinance. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the city’s mistake in issuing the permit did not warrant estoppel.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that the trial court's judgment was supported by legally sufficient evidence. The court found that city officials had affirmatively misled the builder about the height limit and that the builder had relied on these misrepresentations to their detriment. The court also determined that this was an exceptional case where estoppel was necessary to prevent manifest injustice and that estopping the city would not interfere with its governmental functions. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment and reinstated the trial court's judgment, estopping the city from enforcing the RPS ordinance against the builder. View "PDT HOLDINGS, INC. v. CITY OF DALLAS" on Justia Law

Christine Stary and Brady Ethridge divorced in 2018 and agreed to share custody of their three children. In March 2020, Stary was arrested and charged with felony injury to a child, but the charges were dismissed in February 2025. Ethridge applied for a civil protective order a week after Stary's arrest, alleging family violence and seeking an order lasting longer than two years. The trial court issued a temporary order preventing Stary from contacting her children. At the hearing, Ethridge testified about instances of Stary injuring the children, supported by medical records. Stary denied the allegations and testified on her own behalf. The trial court found that Stary committed felony family violence and issued a lifetime protective order prohibiting all contact between Stary and her children.The trial court's decision was appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the order. The appellate court held that a lifetime protective order prohibiting a parent from contacting her children is not equivalent to terminating parental rights and does not require heightened procedural safeguards. One justice dissented, arguing that the order effectively terminated Stary's parental rights.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that constitutional due process requires clear and convincing evidence to support a protective order prohibiting contact between a parent and her children for longer than two years. The court emphasized that such orders profoundly interfere with a parent's fundamental right to care, custody, and control of their children. The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, requiring the trial court to apply the clear and convincing evidence standard and consider the best interest of the children. View "STARY v. ETHRIDGE" on Justia Law

An employee, Sharon Dunn, was injured while working as an emergency-department nurse for East Texas Medical Center Athens (ETMC Athens), a nonsubscriber to the Texas workers’ compensation program. Dunn alleged that an emergency medical technician (EMT), who was not employed by ETMC Athens, negligently pushed a stretcher into her, causing a serious back injury. Dunn initially sued the EMT and his employer, but those claims were dismissed due to her failure to timely serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act. Dunn then amended her pleadings to assert negligence claims against ETMC Athens.The trial court granted ETMC Athens's motion to designate the EMT and his employer as responsible third parties under the Texas proportionate-responsibility statute. However, eleven months later, Dunn moved to strike the designations, arguing that her suit was an action to collect workers’ compensation benefits, to which the proportionate-responsibility statute does not apply. The trial court granted Dunn’s motion, and the court of appeals denied ETMC Athens’s petition for mandamus relief.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by striking the designations. The court held that the proportionate-responsibility statute applies because Dunn’s negligence claim against ETMC Athens is not an action to collect workers’ compensation benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The court also held that the Act does not prohibit nonsubscribing employers from designating responsible third parties and that there was sufficient evidence of the third parties’ responsibility. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Texas conditionally granted ETMC Athens’s petition for mandamus relief, ordering the trial court to vacate its order striking the designations. View "IN RE EAST TEXAS MEDICAL CENTER ATHENS" on Justia Law

Tom and Becky Carlson filed a contested case against the Texas Comptroller under the Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act (PRPRPA), alleging that the Comptroller’s approval of a wind turbine project resulted in a taking of their property. The case was referred to the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH), where the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed it as untimely filed, stating that neither the Comptroller nor SOAH had jurisdiction. The Carlsons sought clarification from SOAH, which indicated that the case would return to the Comptroller for a final decision. However, the Comptroller later asserted that the ALJ’s order was final and appealable, leading to the Carlsons' mandamus petition.The Carlsons filed a mandamus petition directly in the Supreme Court of Texas, seeking to compel the Comptroller to issue a final order so they could appeal to district court. The State initially defended the Comptroller’s position that the ALJ’s order was final. However, after the Supreme Court requested clarification on the State’s unified position, the Comptroller issued a final decision, rendering the Carlsons' petition moot.The Supreme Court of Texas held that the Comptroller’s issuance of a final decision extinguished the dispute, making the mandamus petition moot. The Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, as there was no longer a justiciable controversy between the parties. The Carlsons agreed with this outcome, as they would now receive the judicial review they sought. View "IN RE CARLSON" on Justia Law

Mara Lindsey was involved in a car accident where she was rear-ended by Carlos Pantoja, resulting in personal injuries. Lindsey sought compensation for her medical expenses and, after settling with Pantoja’s insurer for his policy limit of $50,000, she filed a claim with her own insurer, State Farm, under her underinsured motorist (UIM) policy. Dissatisfied with State Farm’s settlement offer of $689.58, Lindsey sued State Farm under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) for declarations regarding Pantoja’s liability, her damages, and her entitlement to UIM benefits. She also sued State Farm and its claims adjuster for Insurance Code violations, alleging bad faith in handling her claim.The trial court denied State Farm’s motions to abate the extracontractual claims and to quash the deposition notice of its corporate representative. The court of appeals denied State Farm’s mandamus petitions without substantive explanation. State Farm then petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for mandamus relief.The Supreme Court of Texas held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying State Farm’s motions. The court ruled that extracontractual claims must be abated until the insured obtains a favorable judgment on the UIM coverage, as these claims are dependent on the right to receive UIM benefits. The court also held that discovery on extracontractual matters is improper before establishing entitlement to UIM benefits. Additionally, the court found that State Farm had demonstrated that the deposition of its corporate representative was not proportional to the needs of the case, given the lack of personal knowledge and the burden of the proposed discovery.The Supreme Court of Texas conditionally granted State Farm’s petition for writ of mandamus, ordering the trial court to vacate its previous orders and grant State Farm’s motions to abate the extracontractual claims and to quash the deposition notice. View "IN RE STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY" on Justia Law

A Colorado real estate investment trust sued a Texas hedge fund and its employees for damages caused by an allegedly defamatory article published under a pseudonym. The claims were dismissed in Colorado federal court for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trust then sued in Texas state court. The defendants moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) and for summary judgment based on collateral estoppel. The trial court granted both motions.The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas reversed the trial court's decision. It held that the trial court lacked authority to grant the TCPA motion after it was overruled by operation of law and that the defendants failed to conclusively establish that collateral estoppel barred the claims. The appellate court determined that the Colorado court's findings on personal jurisdiction did not preclude the Texas claims and that the addition of new defendants in Texas further demonstrated that the issues were not identical.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case. It agreed with the appellate court that the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on their collateral estoppel defense. However, it found that the appellate court erred in holding that the order granting the TCPA motion was void. The Supreme Court of Texas concluded that the trial court's error in granting the TCPA motion outside the statutory deadline was harmless because it occurred within the time frame in which the defendants could have appealed the denial by operation of law. The case was remanded to the appellate court to address the TCPA motion on its merits. View "FIRST SABREPOINT CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. v. FARMLAND PARTNERS INC." on Justia Law

A woman, acting as guardian for her elderly father, moved him out of the house he shared with his fourth wife and later filed for divorce on his behalf, citing that the couple had lived apart for more than three years. The trial court granted the divorce, and the wife appealed. The man died while the appeal was pending, and the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as moot but affirmed the divorce decree.The wife raised three issues before the Supreme Court of Texas: (1) the man's death did not moot her appeal, (2) Texas law does not permit a guardian to sue for divorce on her ward’s behalf, and (3) living apart is not a ground for divorce when neither spouse voluntarily lived apart from the other. The Supreme Court agreed that the man's death did not moot the appeal because whether the marriage ended by divorce or by death substantially affects the wife’s asserted property interests.The Supreme Court of Texas did not definitively decide whether Texas law permits a guardian to sue for divorce on behalf of a ward. However, it held that, to whatever extent the Texas Estates Code may allow a guardian to seek a divorce on her ward’s behalf, it requires the guardianship and divorce courts to find that permitting the divorce would promote the ward’s well-being and protect his best interests. Because neither court made that finding in this case and, due to the ward’s death, neither can do so now, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment, vacated the divorce decree, and dismissed the suit. View "IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF BENAVIDES" on Justia Law

Barrie Myers was seriously injured in an automobile crash shortly after midnight on November 30, 2018. Nasar Khan, who had been drinking at Cadot Restaurant in Dallas, rear-ended Myers’s vehicle. Khan’s blood alcohol content (BAC) was 0.139, well above the legal limit. The record, however, leaves many facts about the evening unclear, including how much alcohol Khan consumed and how long he was at the restaurant and Jones’s home before the crash.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Cadot Restaurant, concluding that Myers produced no evidence to establish that it was apparent to Cadot that Khan was obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presented a clear danger when served. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas reversed, holding that a fact issue existed based on Khan’s deposition concessions about his appearance and demeanor at Cadot.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and agreed with the trial court. The court held that the evidence presented by Myers required impermissible inferences upon inferences to establish how Khan may have appeared when served. The court emphasized that the Texas Dram Shop Act requires proof that it was apparent to the provider that the customer was obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presented a clear danger. The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including Khan’s BAC and expert testimony, was insufficient to establish this fact. The court also concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Myers’s motion for continuance. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment and reinstated the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Cadot. View "Raoger Corp. v. Myers" on Justia Law