Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Certain provisions of the Texas Occupations Code and Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation rules promulgated pursuant to that Code require eyebrow threaders to undergo 750 hours of training in order to obtain a license before practicing commercial threading. Plaintiffs, several individuals practicing commercial eyebrow threading and the salon owners employing them, filed this declaratory judgment action asserting that, as applied to them, Texas’s licensing statutes and regulations violate the state Constitution’s due course of law provision. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that the number of hours required for a license to practice commercial eyebrow threading are not related to health or safety or to what threaders actually do. The trial court granted summary judgment for the State. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the large number of required hours that are not arguably related to the actual practice of threading, the associated costs of those hours, and the delayed employment opportunities while taking the hours make the licensing requirements as a whole reach the level of being so burdensome that they are oppressive in light of the governmental interest. View "Patel v. Dep’t of Licensing & Regulation" on Justia Law

This premises-liability case arose from the drowning deaths of a young father and his twin daughters at a man-made beach. The mother and surviving spouse of the decedents (Plaintiff) filed suit against the City of Texas City alleging that the deaths resulted from a peculiar risk of harm created by a confluence of artificial and natural conditions at the beach and that the the City was grossly negligent in failing to warn or protect the public against those dangers. In bringing suit against Texas City, Plaintiff averred that governmental immunity was waived. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that Plaintiff’s pleadings and evidence were insufficient to support jurisdiction. The trial court denied the jurisdictional plea. The court of appeals reversed and dismissed the claims for want of jurisdiction. At issue on appeal was whether there was evidence of the City’s liability to invoke the Texas Tort Claims Act’s waiver of governmental immunity, as limited by the recreational use statute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence to invoke the Texas Tort Claims Act’s waiver of immunity from suit. View "Suarez v. City of Texas City" on Justia Law

One of the exceptions to the Texas Public Information Act purports to protect information that “if released, would give advantage to a competitor or bidder.” A former Boeing employee submitted a Public Information Act request to the Port Authority of San Antonio for various Boeing corporation information. Boeing provided some of the requested information and withheld other information, claiming that the information withheld was “competitively sensitive information” that would “give advantage to its competitors.” The Attorney General concluded that none of the withheld information was exempt from disclosure under the Act. The trial court agreed with the Attorney General. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the exception protects the purchasing interests of a governmental body when conducting competitive bidding but not those of a private party that competes in the process. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a private party may assert the exception to protect its competitively sensitive information; and (2) because Boeing demonstrated that the information at issue was competitively sensitive and will give advantage to its competitors if released, Boeing’s objection to the mandatory release of this information is sustained. View "The Boeing Co. v. Paxton" on Justia Law

Respondents, a same-sex couple who were married in Massachusetts, sought a divorce in Texas. The two women settled their differences, and the trial court orally granted an ostensible divorce pursuant to the parties’ agreement. The State filed a petition in intervention seeking to oppose the petition for divorce and to defend the constitutionality of Texas law that limits divorce actions to persons of the opposite sex who are married to one another. The State argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to render a divorce. The trial court ultimately decided not to entertain the State’s petition, concluding that the attempted intervention was untimely. The court of appeals dismissed the State’s appeal for want of jurisdiction, also ruling that the intervention was untimely. The State sought the Supreme Court’s review, asking the Court to allow the intervention and to vacate the divorce. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals and denied the State’s petition for writ of mandamus, holding that the State failed to secure standing by properly presenting its arguments to the trial court and court of appeals, and consequently, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to reach those issues. View "State v. Naylor" on Justia Law

At issue in this residential construction dispute was whether the statutory cap on exemplary damages is waived if not pleaded as an affirmative defense or avoidance. The trial court affirmed an exemplary damages award in excess of the statutory cap because Petitioner did not assert the cap until her motion for a new trial. The court of appeals affirmed the exemplary damages award, concluding that the statutory cap on exemplary damages did not apply because Petitioner failed to expressly plead the cap as an affirmative defense. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the court of appeals’ judgment in relation to the exemplary cap, holding (i) the exemplary damages cap is not a matter ”constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense” and need not be affirmatively pleaded because it applies automatically when invoked and does not require proof of additional facts, and (ii) because Petitioner timely asserted the cap in her motion for new trial, the exemplary damages must be capped at $200,000; and (2) affirmed in all other respects. View "Zorilla v. Aypco Constr. II, LLC" on Justia Law

A number of civil disputes arose from the discovery that a probate clerk had looted millions of dollars from the estates of Bexar County residents who had died intestate. The case involved an intestate estate defrauded of more than half a million dollars. More than a decade after the estate’s administration had closed, and more than three years after learning that the rogue clerk had misappropriated funds from the estates, the intestate’s heirs petitioned by equitable bill of review to re-open the estate, alleging that the estate administrator breached fiduciary duties and fraudulently concealed information about the estate’s assets. The probate court granted the equitable bill of review and set aside the orders closing probate. Thereafter, the heirs successfully litigated their claims against the administrator and were awarded damages against the administrator and his surety. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the heirs’ bill of review was untimely because it was filed more than two years after they received information that would cause a reasonably prudent person to make inquiry, which, if pursued, would lead to the discovery of the concealed cause of action. View "Valdez v. Bernard" on Justia Law

In a 1996 purchase and sale agreement Torch Energy Advisors Inc. sold its leasehold interests in undeveloped oil and gas fields located under federal waters. Certain interests were excluded from the conveyance. A decade later, a federal court determined that the federal government had repudiated the mineral leases because a statute enacted before the conveyance had been applied in a manner that precluded development of the leasehold interests. Consequently, the purchaser’s successor in interest, Plains Exploration & Production Company, was awarded restitution of the lease-bonus payments that Torch’s predecessor had paid to secure the leases. Torch claimed an ownership interest in approximately half of the judgment based on the terms of the excluded-assets provision in the 1996 agreement. Plains declined to pay. Torch sued, alleging contract and equitable theories of recovery. The trial court entered a take-nothing judgment in Plains’s favor. The court of appeals reversed in part and remanded the equity claim for a trial on the merits, concluding that Torch’s equitable claim hinged on the proper construction of the 1996 agreement’s terms. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the relevant excluded-assets provisions in the 1996 agreement were unambiguous and, as a matter of law, Torch did not retain ownership of the claimed asset. View "Plains Exploration & Prod. Co. v. Torch Energy Advisors, Inc." on Justia Law

Kachina Pipeline Co., a pipeline operator, and Michael Lillis, a natural-gas producer, entered into a Gas Purchase Agreement. Kachina bought, transported, and resold Lillis’s gas according to the Agreement. Lillis later entered into a separate purchase agreement and constructed his own pipeline to one of Davis Gas Processing’s plants. Thereafter, Lillis sued Kachina, asserting that Kachina breached the Agreement by deducting the costs of compression that occurred after Lillis delivered the gas to Kachina. Lillis also brought a fraud claim, asserting that Kachina represented it would release him from the Agreement. Kachina counterclaimed for breach of the Agreement and seeking declarations that it had the right to deduct compression charges under the Agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment for Kachina, declaring that the Agreement entitled Kachina to deduct the costs of compression from its payments to Lillis and that the Agreement gave Kachina the option to extend the arrangement for an additional five-year term. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Agreement unambiguously allowed neither the disputed deductions nor a five-year extension. Remanded. View "Kachina Pipeline Co., Inc. v. Lillis" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs in this case were more than 400 residents and homeowners in the upper White Oak Bayou watershed in Harris County. From 1998 to 2002, most of Plaintiffs’ homes were inundated in three successive floods. Plaintiffs filed an inverse condemnation suit against several government entities, arguing that Defendants knew that harm was substantially certain to result to Plaintiffs’ homes when Defendants approved private development in the White Oak Bayou watershed without mitigating its consequences. Defendants responded with a combined plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment, contending that no genuine issue of material fact had been raised on the elements of the takings claim. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of the plea to the jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a fact question existed as to each element of Plaintiffs’ takings claim, and therefore, the government entities’ plea to the jurisdiction was properly denied. View "Harris County Flood Control Dist. v. Kerr" on Justia Law

A narrow majority of voters in the City of Houston adopted an amendment to their City Charter that was approved in the November 2, 2010 election. The amendment created a “Dedicated Pay-As-You-Go Fund for Drainage and Streets.” After the election, several voters filed an election contest seeking a declaration that the ballot proposition was invalid and a determination that the adoption of the amendment was invalid. The ballot in this case did not make clear that the amendment imposed charges directly on many voters. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the City. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the City did not adequately describe the chief features of the charter amendment on the ballot, the proposed amendment was not submitted with such definiteness and certainty that voters would not be misled. Remanded. View "Dacus v. Parker" on Justia Law