Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

McGinnes Industrial Waste Corporation dumped pulp and paper mill waste sludge into disposal pits near the San Jacinto River in Pasadena, Texas (the site). After environmental contamination was discovered at the site, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) instituted superfund cleanup proceedings under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). During the period that McGinnes was dumping waste at the Site, it was covered by standard-form commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies issued by Phoenix Insurance Company and Travelers Indemnity Company (together, the Insurers). McGinnes requested a defense in the EPA proceedings from the Insurers. The Insurers refused, determining that the proceedings were not a “suit” under the policy. McGinnes sued the insurers in federal court seeking a declaration that the policies obligated them to defend the EPA’s CERCLA proceedings. The district court granted the Insurers’ motion for partial summary judgment on the duty-to-defend issue. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit certified a question regarding the issue to the Texas Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered that “suit” in the CGL policies at issue must also include CERCLA enforcement proceedings by the EPA. View "McGinnes Indus. Maint. Corp. v. Phoenix Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The Court of Criminal Appeals held David Dow, a post-trial capital defense attorney, in contempt for violating Court of Criminal Appeals Miscellaneous Rule 11-003 and suspended him from practicing before it for one year. Dow filed this original proceeding seeking mandamus and declaratory relief in the Supreme Court, contending that the Court of Criminal Appeals exceeded its authority in imposing the sanction. The Supreme Court dismissed Dow’s petition, holding (1) the Court does not have jurisdiction under the Constitution over Dow’s petition for mandamus relief; and (2) because the Court lacked mandamus jurisdiction, it also lacked jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief. View "In re Dow" on Justia Law

In 2011, Respondents sued Petitioner over two acres of land that Petitioner purchased from Respondents in 2006 through a trust. The deed mistakenly - but unambiguously - failed to reserve mineral rights. When Respondents discovered the error, they demanded that Petitioner issue a correction deed, but Petitioner claimed that the statute of limitations barred Respondents’ claims over the deed. Respondents urged the trial court to declare as a matter of law that the deed did not convey mineral rights and argued that Petitioner breached the sales contract by refusing to execute a correction deed. The trial court ruled that Respondents’ claims were time-barred. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the discovery rule delayed the accrual of limitations for a deed-reformation claim. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a plainly obvious and material omission in an unambiguous deed is not a type of injury for which the discovery rule is available because it charges parties with irrefutable notice for limitations purposes; (2) Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 13.002 provides all persons, including the grantor, with notice of the deed’s contents as well; and (3) therefore, a grantor who signs an unambiguous deed is presumed as a matter of law to have immediate knowledge of material omissions. Accordingly, Respondents’ suit was untimely. View "Cosgrove v. Cade" on Justia Law

Francisco Lopez hired Royston, Rayzor, Vickery & Williams, LLP (the Firm) to represent him in a divorce suit. The attorney-client employment contract between the parties contained an arbitration provision specifying that Lopez and the Firm will arbitrate any disputes that arise between them with the exception of claims made by the Firm for recovery of its fees and expenses. Once the underlying divorce matter was settled, Lopez sued the Firm, claiming that the Firm induced him to accept an inadequate settlement. The Firm moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the Firm’s motion. The Firm filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial and an original proceeding seeking mandamus under common law. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s refusal to order arbitration and denied mandamus relief, concluding that the arbitration provision was so one-sided as to be substantively unconscionable and unenforceable. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Lopez did not prove that either the arbitration provision was substantively unconscionable or any other defense to the arbitration provision. View "In re Royston, Rayzor, Vickery, & Williams, LLP" on Justia Law

Petitioners in this case were deaf inmates housed in a unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). Petitioners sued TDCJ’s executive director, asserting that he violated the Texas Human Resources Code by failing reasonably to accommodate their impairment. Petitioners relied on the ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity as a basis for showing that the trial court had jurisdiction. The trial court granted a temporary injunction ordering TDCJ to make certain accommodations. The court of appeals reversed and dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction, holding that TDCJ prison facilities are not “public facilities” under the Code, and therefore, Defendant could not have acted ultra vires by failing to comply with its provisions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in holding that TDCJ prisons are not “public facilities” under the Code and that Petitioners failed to show Defendant acted ultra vires. View "Beeman v. Livingston" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the scope of attorneys’ immunity from civil liability to non-clients. Philip Byrd and Nancy Simenstad commenced divorce proceedings. Simenstad was represented in the proceedings by Cantey Hanger, LLP. The parties eventually settled. The decree awarded Simenstad three aircraft as her separate property, including a Piper Seminole that had been owned by Lucy Leasing, Co., LLC. Byrd and two of the companies awarded to Byrd in the decree later sued Simenstad and Cantey Hanger alleging that after the decree was entered, Defendants falsified a bill of sale transferring the Piper Seminole from Lucy Leasing to a third party in order to shift tax liability for the aircraft to Byrd in contravention of the divorce decree. The trial court granted summary judgment to Cantey Hanger on attorney-immunity grounds. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the firm’s alleged misconduct was unrelated to the divorce litigation and that the firm had not conclusively established its entitlement to immunity. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment, holding that Canter Hanger conclusively established that it is immune from civil liability to Plaintiffs, and therefore, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was proper. View "Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd" on Justia Law

Greater Houston Partnership (GHP) is a nonprofit corporation providing economic development services to the City and other clients pursuant to quid pro quo contracts. A Houston area resident submitted to GHP a request seeking a copy of GHP’s check register. The resident claimed that GHP is an organization that spends or is supported in whole or in part by public funds, and therefore, GHP is subject to the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) in the same manner as a governmental body. GHP did not disclose the requested information, claiming that it did not qualify as a “governmental body” under the TPIA because the public funds it received were compensation for services provided to the City of Houston pursuant to a contract. The Attorney General concluded that GHP was subject to the TPIA’s disclosure requirements. The trial court agreed, and the court of appeals affirmed the trial court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that GHP is not a “governmental body” under the TPIA because it is not wholly or partially sustained by public funds. View "Greater Houston P’ship v. Paxton" on Justia Law

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