Texas Appellate Law Blog : Texas Appellate Lawyer & Attorney : Smith Law Group, P.C. : Appeals, Sanctions, Summary Judgment : Austin, Texas

The Texas Supreme Court issued four decisions—two of which were among the older cases on its docket—with this week's regular orders.

In Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert (No. 05-0916), the Court held that a church was not estopped from asserting its constitutional rights, reversed a money judgment against the church, and rendered judgment of dismissal because the case represented an ecclesiastical dispute over religious conduct.  Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Green, and Justice Johnson each filed separate dissenting opinions.

In JCW Electronics, Inc. v. Garza (No. 05-1042), the Court held that the proportionate responsibility statute (Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code) applies to personal injury claims brought under a breach of implied warranty theory.  Applying that rule to the jury's finding that the decedent was 60 percent responsible, the Court determined that the plaintiff's claims were barred and rendered a take-nothing judgment.  Chief Justice Jefferson (joined by Justice O'Neill) concurred.

In In re Chambless (No. 07-0767) (per curiam) the Court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering temporary grandparental visitation without allowing the custodial parent an opportunity to be heard.

In In re Office of the Attorney General (No. 08-0165) (per curiam), the Court determined that the trial court's temporary restraining order and related orders violated Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 680 and 684 in various ways and were therefore void.  Because TROs are not appealable, the Attorney General had no adequate remedy at law, and the Court granted mandamus relief.

Unless the Court issues a special set of orders next week, it appears that the last regular orders until late August may come on Friday, July 11.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

While I was out on vacation, I received the sad news that former Texas Supreme Court Justice James Baker had passed away.  Aside from numerous media reports summarizing his many accomplishments, the Court has issued this tribute, which captures the essence of the man. 

I was working for former Justice Raul Gonzalez when then-Governor Bush appointed Justice Baker to fill an open seat on the Court.  His chambers were across the hall, and he often poked his head in to say hello or to drop off his latest revisions to a draft opinion.  "Shorter!  Simpler!" were the most frequent comments.  He thought the Court's opinions should be easy to read and understand, and he had no difficulty expressing himself—always politely and respectfully—if he thought a draft wasn't true to the law.

After he "retired" to become a partner at Hughes & Luce (now K&L Gates), Justice Baker remained a mainstay in the appellate bar.  When he wasn't speaking at CLE functions, you could count on him sitting near the front row, listening attentively.  The seriousness of his illness was obvious when he missed the UT Appellate Seminar and related functions late last month.

Justice Baker set the bar high for appellate judges and practitioners alike.  We should all strive to meet his standards.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I'm away on vacation and am spending time with my family rather than blogging.  For summaries of yesterday's Texas Supreme Court decisions, see Osler McCarthy's summaries or visit my blogging colleague Don Cruse's Supreme Court of Texas Blog.  I'll be back online next week.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Texas Supreme Court issued four new decisions and one substituted opinion with today's regular orders.

In General Electric Co. v. Moritz (No. 0871), the Court reaffirmed that a landowner owes an independent contractor’s employees no duty to warn of obvious hazards they already know about, rejecting the plaintiff's argument that his knowledge of the hazard was simply a factor for the jury to consider in assessing comparative negligence.  Justice Green (joined by Chief Justice Jefferson and Justice Johnson) dissented.

In Frymire Engineering Co. v. Jomar International, Ltd. (No. 06-0755), the Court held that the subrogation doctrine applies to a subcontractor seeking to recover contractual payments from alleged third-party tortfeasors, provided the doctrine's traditional requirements are satisfied. 

In Leland v. Brandal (No. 06-1028), a health-care liability case, the Court determined that a plaintiff may receive a 30-day extension to cure a deficient expert report after a ruling that the report is adequate has been reversed on appeal.  Justice Brister dissented. 

In Kao Holdings, L.P. v. Young (No. 07-0197) (per curiam), a restricted appeal, the Court reversed a default judgment granted against an individual who was not named as party to the suit, modified the judgment, and affirmed as modified.

In Evanston Insurance Co. v. ATOFINA Petrochemicals, Inc. (No. 03-0647), the Court denied the motions for rehearing, withdrew its February 15, 2008 opinion and judgment (which were themselves issued on rehearing), and issued a substitute opinion reaching mostly the same result.  Rather than render a complete judgment, however, the Court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings on some of the insured's claims for attorney's fees and its prejudgment interest claim.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Anyone want to hire me for a flat fee of $200,000 for a single case? 

Didn't think so.  But then again, I'm not the former Solicitor General of the United States.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Texas Supreme Court issued three opinions with today's regular Friday orders.

In In re Roberts (No. 05‑0362) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam), the Court concluded that allowing plaintiffs a 30-day grace period to amend expert reports in a health-care liability case "does not substantially prolong litigation or allow for extensive discovery" and therefore does not cause the kind of delay for which mandamus is available under its recent decision in In re McAllen Medical Center.  The Court somewhat snidely observed that this original proceeding had delayed the case for four years, in contrast to the the mere 30-day delay the extension would have caused.

In In re Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, Ltd. (No. 05-0575) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam), a health-care liability case involving the trial court's refusal to dismiss based on allegedly defective expert reports, the Court conditionally granted mandamus relief and instructed the court of appeals to consider whether an adequate appellate remedy exists in light of In re McAllen Medical Center.

In FKM Partnership, Ltd. v. Board of Regents of the University of Houston System (05‑0661), the Court held that the trial court retained jurisdiction over a condemnation action after the condemning authority amended its petition to reduce the amount of property to be taken by more than 97 percent.  The Court further held that the condemning authority was liable to the landowner for certain fees and expenses because the reduction in property condemned effectively dismissed the original proceeding.  Justice Willett issued an opinion concurring and dissenting in part.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks