Texas Appellate Lawyer & Attorney : D. Todd Smith Law Firm : Appeals, Sanctions, Summary Judgment : Austin, Texas

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.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Texas Supreme Court decided six cases and issued one substituted opinion with this week's orders.  Briefly, the new decisions are:

• First American Title Insurance Co. v. Combs (No. 05-0541), affirming the Comptroller's interpretation of a retaliatory tax statute affecting foreign insurers.
  
  
• In re McAllen Medical Center (No. 05-0892) (orig. proceeding), holding that appellate courts may review the adequacy of expert reports required by the Medical Liability Act when the statute's purposes would otherwise be defeated.  The Court conditionally granted the writ and ordered the trial court to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims against the hospital.
  
  
• Canyon Regional Water Authority v. Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (No. 06-0873), deciding a state water authority's easement rights involving a lake.
  
  
• In re Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (No. 06-0886) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam), concluding that removing a case to federal court before filing an answer did not waive the defendants' right to arbitration.  Compare Perry Homes v. Cull (No. 05-0882), previously discussed here.
  
  
• Higgins v. Randall County Sheriff's Office (No. 06- 0917), holding that an uncontested affidavit of indigence entitled the appellant to pursue his appeal without advance payment of costs.
  
  
• City of Dallas v. Reed (No. 07-0469) (per curiam), determining that a two-inch variance between traffic lanes was neither a special defect nor a premises defect for purposes of the Tort Claims Act.

I expect we'll see some lively discussion of McAllen Medical Center, Citigroup, and Reed in the coming days.

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

With last week's orders, the Texas Supreme Court decided five cases, four of which involved per curiam opinions.

In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mayes, the Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to raise fact issues sufficient to preclude summary judgment.  Reversing a divided court of appeals for failure to apply the proper standard of review, the Court rendered judgment that the plaintiff take nothing.

In In re Allied Chemical Corporation, a divided Court conditionally granted mandamus relief to defendants in a mass-tort case set for trial even though the plaintiffs had never identified medical experts who could connect their diseases to the defendants' products.  The Court determined that the trial setting was premature and that mandamus was appropriate (1) to avoid a "monumental waste of judicial resources," (2) because the trial setting effectively denied discovery going to the heart of the defendants' case, and (3) because the setting severely compromised the defendants' ability to present any case at all at trial.  Justice Hecht concurred, and Chief Justice Jefferson (joined by Justices O'Neill, Wainwright, and Johnson) and Justice Wainwright each issued dissenting opinions.

In Kallam v. Boyd, theCourt withdrew its previous order granting the defendants' petitions and denied the petitions as improvidently granted because the plaintiff died shortly before oral argument.  Under the circumstances, the Court decided not to address the constitutional issue on which the court of appeals' decision turned:  whether the Texas Constitution's Open Courts provision precluded application of the statute of limitations to bar claims before the plaintiff reasonably could have discovered them.

In Brinson Ford, Inc. v. Alger, the Court held that the plaintiff, who fell from a pedestrian ramp at an auto dealership, presented no evidence of a premises condition posing an unreasonable risk of harm.  The Court reversed and rendered judgment for the dealership.

In In re Allstate County Mutual Insurance Co., the Court conditionally granted mandamus relief to an insurer and agent bombarded with a total of 213 discovery requests (89 requests for production, 59 interrogatories, and 65 requests for admission) in a third party car-wreck case.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks