Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals ruling that, where the trial court granted a motion to dismiss without specifying the ground for its decision, the court of appeals did not have authority to order supplemental briefing but was instead required to affirm because of Appellants' failure to brief all possible grounds for the trial court's decision, holding that the court of appeals had the authority to order supplemental briefing.In this dispute over church assets, Appellees filed a motion to dismiss and a plea to the jurisdiction based on both standing and the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. The trial court granted the motion but did not specify the grounds for its decision. Appellants appealed, but the appellate brief only addressed the standing issue. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that it lacked the authority to order supplemental briefing on the ecclesiastical abstention issue and was bound to affirm the trial court because Appellants failed to challenge all possible bases for the decision. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because Appellants effectively raised the ecclesiastical abstention issue in their appellate briefing, the court of appeals had the authority to order additional briefing under Tex. R. App. P. 38.9. View "St. John Missionary Baptist Church v. Flakes" on Justia Law

In this venue dispute, the Supreme Court denied a petition for mandamus relief, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in transferring the case to the parties' agreed venue.This case stemmed from a lawsuit alleging wrongful disposition of a limited partnership's assets. A group of the limited partners (collectively, Fox River) sued William Carlson, who owned and controlled the partnership's general partner, claiming that Carlson fraudulently misappropriated groundwater leases, breached the limited partnership agreement, and violated fiduciary duties. Fox River filed the lawsuit in Washington County where Carlson was domiciled. Carlson moved to transfer venue to Harris County, citing a venue-selection clause in the limited partnership agreement. The trial court granted the motion, enforcing the parties' venue agreement in accordance with Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 15.020. Fox River sought mandamus relief, arguing that Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 65.023(a) mandates venue in a defendant's county of domicile for cases primarily seeking injunctive relief. The Supreme Court denied mandamus relief, holding that section 15.020 requires enforcement of the parties' venue-selection agreement not because it is a "super mandatory" venue provision that supersedes section 65.023(a) but because section 65.023(a) does not apply in suits like this where injunctive relief is not the primary and principal relief requested. View "In re Fox River Real Estate Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals applying Tex. Agric. Code 143.074 in holding that Plaintiff, the driver on a state highway that collided with an escaped bull in a county with a stock law, could recover against Defendant, the livestock owner, without showing the livestock owner knowingly permitted the bull to roam at large, holding that the court of appeals erred.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) when cars collide with livestock on state highways in counties with stock laws, the differing standards of livestock-owner liability imposed by section 143.102 and section 143.074 cannot both apply; (2) section 143.102 provided the exclusive standard for the livestock owner's liability because the accident occurred on a state highway; and (3) because the plaintiff could not demonstrate the defendant violated section 143.102's liability standard, summary judgment was properly granted for the defendant on all claims. View "Pruski v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court considered two questions of Texas law certified from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concerning whether changes made by the Texas Legislature in 2017 to Deferred Retirement Option Plans (DROP) violate a Texas Constitution provision that prohibits the reduction or impairment of certain accrued retirement benefits, concluding that the 2017 legislative reforms do not violate the Constitution.Certain retirees challenged the 2017 statutory amendments, which eliminated their ability to request lump-sum distributions from their respective DROP accounts. The retirees argued that the funds in DROP are accrued service retirement benefits and that the change to how the funds may be withdrawn reduces or impaired the accrued benefit in violation of Tex. Const. art. XVI, 66(d). The Fifth Circuit certified questions to the Supreme Court, concluding that section 66's application in this case was unsettled under Texas law. The Supreme Court answered that the 2017 amendment does not violate section 66. View "Degan v. Board of Trustees of the Dallas Police" on Justia Law

In this contract dispute, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment for Defendants, holding that, under the statute of frauds, the proffered contract was not enforceable and Defendants could not be liable for breach of it.The parties to this dispute sent several e-mails prior to the anticipating signing of a formal written agreement, which was never executed. Plaintiffs, however, claimed that the e-mails, taken together, amounted to an enforceable written contract that satisfied the statute of frauds. Plaintiffs sued for breach of the alleged contract and for tortious interference. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants on all claims. The court of appeals reversed as to the breach of contract claim, concluding that the e-mails satisfied the statute of frauds and amounted to a contract enforceable against Defendants. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment on the contract claims, holding that there was no written memorandum which was complete within itself in every material detail, as required by the statute of frauds. View "Copano Energy, LLC v. Bujnoch" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court concluding that Petitioners (together, ETP) and Respondents (together, Enterprise) had created a partnership to market and pursue a pipeline project to transport crude oil from Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast, holding that Texas law permits parties to conclusively agree that, as between themselves, no partnership will exist unless certain conditions are satisfied.In three written agreements, the parties set forth their intent that neither party be bound to proceed with the project at issue until each company's board of directors had approved the execution of a formal contract and definitive agreements memorializing the terms and conditions of the transactions were executed and delivered. ETP later sued arguing the parties had formed a partnership to market and pursue a pipeline and that Enterprise breached its statutory duty of loyalty. The trial court entered judgment for ETP. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) parties can conclusively negate the formation of a partnership through contractual conditions precedent; and (2) the parties did so as a matter of law in this case, and there was no evidence that Enterprise waived the conditions. View "Energy Transfer Partners, LP v. Enterprise Products Partners, LP" on Justia Law

In this property dispute between adjoining landowners the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court enforcing an easement, holding that a neighborhood association had standing to enforce the easement and that the evidence supported the trial court's rejection of the neighboring property owner's affirmative defenses of waiver and estoppel.Petitioner owned a parcel of undeveloped property that bordered Champee Springs Ranches neighborhood, represented here by its property owners association, and was burdened by a restrictive easement. Petitioner sought to avoid the easement to connect the property to existing public roads and to develop the parcel into a residential subdivision. To further these plans, Petitioner's predecessor built a private construction road across the easement in violation of the easement's access restriction. Champee Springs bought this lawsuit to enforce the easement. The trial court enforced the easement, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Champee Springs had standing to sue to enforce the easement; (2) the evidence supported the trial court's rejection of Petitioner's affirmative defenses; and (3) this Court declines to declare the restrictive easement void on public policy grounds. View "Teal Trading & Development, LP v. Champee Springs Ranches Property Owners Ass'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, holding that a devise of "all...right, title and interest in and to Ranch 'Las Piedras'" referred only to a surface estate by that name, as understood by the testatrix and beneficiaries at the time the will was made, and did not include the mineral estate.Respondents asserted that their father's life estate under their grandmother's will included her interest in not only the surface of Las Piedras Ranch but also the minerals beneath it. The trial court awarded judgment in favor of Respondents. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Respondents' claims were premised on an erroneous interpretation of their grandmother's will. Therefore, Petitioners were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "ConocoPhillips Co. v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

In this health care liability action, the Supreme Court conditionally granted Claimant's petition for writ of mandamus and ordered the court of appeals to vacate its order ruling that Claimant was not permitted to depose a health care provider before serving him with an expert report, holding that the court of appeals erred in holding that the Medical Liability Act categorically prohibited Claimant from deposing or obtaining documents from that provider.Claimant sued one health care provider, served an expert report meeting the requirements of the Act on that provider, and then sought to depose Dr. Jeffrey Sandate, another provider involved in the underlying incident and a nonparty in the action. The court of appeals ruled that Claimant may not depose Dr. Sandate before serving him with an expert report under the Act. The Supreme Court ordered the court of appeals to vacate its order, holding that the Act did not insulate Dr. Sandate from being deposed or producing documents in this case. View "In re Comanche Turner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a question certified to it by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit regarding what constitutes good faith under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA) by holding that when a transferee on inquiry notice attempts to use TUFTA's affirmative defense that it acted in good faith to shield a transfer from the statute's clawback provision it must show, at a minimum, that it investigated its suspicions diligently.Creditors may invoke TUFTA to claw back fraudulent transfers from their debtors to third-party transferees, but if the transferee proves that it acted in good faith and the transfer was for a reasonably equivalent value, it may keep the transferred asset. The Fifth Circuit asked the Supreme Court whether a transferee on inquiry notice of fraudulent intent can achieve good faith without investigating its suspicions. The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative, holding that a transferee on inquiry notice of fraud cannot shield itself from TUFTA's clawback provision without diligently investigating its initial suspicions, regardless of whether a hypothetical investigation would reveal fraudulent conduct. View "Janvey v. GMAG, LLC" on Justia Law