Petitions for Review Granted by the Texas Supreme Court
TEXAS SUPREME COURT
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW GRANTED
IN 2009

TEXAS SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
2009 PFR GRANTS
Recently Granted Petitions for Review

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW GRANTED
[not necessary an exhaustive list - page is  u n d e r   c o n s t r u c t i o n ]

THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS FOR REVIEW WERE GRANTED SEP. 25, 2009:

08-0523          
TEXAS LOTTERY COMMISSION v. FIRST STATE BANK OF DEQUEEN; STONE STREET CAPITAL, INC.; AND
CLETIUS L. IRVAN; from Travis County; 3rd district (03-07-00249-CV, 254 SW3d 677, 05-16-08) (conflict
between statutes) ("In 1995, appellee Cletius Irvan won approximately $9 million in the Texas Lottery, to be paid
in annual installments of around $450,000. Pursuant to an Arkansas court order that has been domesticated in
Texas, Irvan has attempted to sell and assign his right to receive the last two installment payments, which are due
in 2013 and 2014. The lottery act (at least as interpreted by the Texas Lottery Commission) explicitly prohibits
this assignment, while the Texas UCC not only allows such assignments, but provides that any state law
restricting them is, to that extent, rendered ineffective. The question presented in this appeal is which statute
controls. Agreeing with the district court that the UCC controls, we affirm its judgment.")  as reinstated
[Note: This case has been set for oral argument at 9:00 a.m., December 16, 2009.]
Time allotted to argue: 20/20 minutes

08-0592          
FRESH COAT, INC. v. K-2, INC.; from Montgomery County;
9th district (09-06-00251-CV, 253 SW3d 386, 04-17-08)(product liability, indemnification)
("We hold Finestone is not responsible under the Products Liability Act for the payment Fresh Coat made to Life
Forms as a result of Fresh Coat's contractual agreement with Life Forms. Finestone's other issues are overruled.
We modify the judgment to delete the portion of the award and interest attributable to the contractual payment.
Pursuant to the statute, Fresh Coat is entitled to recover $1,763,328.46 as its loss, with prejudgment interest on
that amount. As modified, the trial court's judgment in favor of Fresh Coat is affirmed.") 2 petitions
[Note: This case has been set for oral argument at 9:00 a.m., December 17, 2009.]
Time allotted to argue: 20/20 minutes

THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS FOR REVIEW WERE GRANTED AUG 21, 2009:

07-0945          
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT v. THE SAWYER TRUST; from Donley County; 7th district
(07-06-00487-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 08-22-07)("Among other things, the Trust sought relief against the
Department for unlawfully taking its property in violation of both the United States and Texas Constitutions, for
declaratory judgment regarding the purported navigability of a stream lying on Trust realty, and for temporary
and permanent injunctions prohibiting the Department from "interfering with its property rights." The State filed a
plea to the jurisdiction of the trial court contending that sovereign immunity barred prosecution of the suit. The
trial court disagreed and denied the motion. ...A declaratory judgment action seeking the determination of a
disputed fact issue, to wit: whether the Salt Fork of the Red River is a navigable waterway as it passes through
the Trust's property, is not a suit against the State that implicates sovereign immunity. Although it may have the
collateral consequence of resolving a factual dispute that impacts a claim being made by the State, it is not an
action that is in essence one for the recovery of money from the State or for determination of title; therefore,
legislative permission to prosecute it is unnecessary. See Cobb v. Harrington, 144 Tex. 360, 190 S.W.2d 709,
712-13 (1945) (in which the court was asked to determine by declaratory judgment whether the parties were
motor carriers as defined by the tax statute which the court found not to be a suit against the state). We voice no
opinion on any other cause of action within the live pleading, however....Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial
court erred in denying the Department's plea. Additionally, the order denying that plea is affirmed.")
as reinstated [Note: This case has been set for oral argument at 9:00 a.m., November 19, 2009

08-0958          
PRESIDIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. ROBERT SCOTT, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION; from
Travis County; 3rd district (03-07-00319-CV, 266 SW3d 531, 08-28-08) ("The question presented is whether
section 21.307 of the education code, Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 21.307 (West 2006), allowing a party to appeal
the Commissioner's (1) decision to a district court in the county where the central administrative offices of the
school district are located, or if agreed by all parties, to a district court in Travis County, is a jurisdictional
statutory prerequisite. Because we conclude that section 21.307 is not a jurisdictional statutory prerequisite, we
affirm the district court's order denying the Commissioner's plea to the jurisdiction, and we remand the cause to
the district court for further proceedings.")
[Note: This case has been set for oral argument at 9:00 a.m., December 15, 2009.]

08-0970          
SCOTT AND WHITE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND SCOTT, SHERWOOD AND BRINDLEY FOUNDATION v. GARY
FAIR AND LINDA FAIR; from Bell County; 3rd district (03-06-00211-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 06-13-08)(premises
liability) ("The Fairs allege that appellees were negligent in failing to exercise ordinary care to discover and make
safe or warn of the accumulated ice on which Mr. Fair allegedly slipped and injured himself. This is a theory of
premises liability.")
[Note: This case has been set for oral argument at 9:00 a.m., December 15, 2009.]


THE FOLLOWING PETITION FOR REVIEW WAS GRANTED JUNE 4, 2009:

08-0669  DAN KELLY AND LAURA HOFSTATTER v. GENERAL INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION, INC.; from Harris
County; 14th district (14-07-00270-CV, 262 SW3d 79, 07-03-08)
[Note: The date and time for oral argument are yet to be determined.]
Hofstatter v. General Interior Construction, Inc., 262 S.W.3d 79 (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] July 3, 2008, pet. granted)
(Hedges) (case with dissents and/or concurrences)(accelerated appeal, special appearance denied, personal jurisdiction,
individual liability of corporate officer based on Texas Trust Fund Act )
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED & REMANDED IN PART: Opinion by Chief Justice Hedges  
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Anderson and Frost
14-07-00270-CV Dan Kelly and Laura Hofstatter v. General Interior Construction, Inc.
Appeal from 125th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: John A. Coselli
Dissenting Opinion by Justice Frost     

THE FOLLOWING PETITION FOR REVIEW WAS GRANTED MAY 15, 2009:

08-1043  
C-SPAN ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUNIL DHAROD v. BLOCKBUSTER, INC.; from Dallas County; 5th district
(05-06-00849-CV, 276 SW3d 482, 08-12-08)(asset transfer agreement, release, attorney's fees)
agreed motion for relief granted in part
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 56.3, without hearing oral argument or considering the merits,
the Court sets aside the judgments of the court of appeals' and the trial court, and remands the case to the trial
court for rendition of judgment pursuant to the parties' settlement agreement.

THE FOLLOWING PETITION FOR REVIEW WAS GRANTED MAY 1, 2009:

07-0960  IN THE INTEREST OF B.G., C.W., E.W., B.B.W. AND J.W., CHILDREN;
from Angelina County; 12th district (12-06-00295-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 09-17-07)(denial of free appellate record
in parental rights termination proceeding, does doctrine of fundamental error apply? denial of due process, due
course of law?)
[Note: The date and time for oral argument are yet to be determined.]
TEXAS LAW FILE NAMES (cases and
caselaw snippets)

law-ADR-family-law  
law-ADR  
law-DJA-declaratory-judgment
law-DSA  
law-DWOJ-dismissal-for-want-of-jurisdiction
law-DWOP-dismissal
law-HCLC
law-IIED-intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress  
law-ILA
law-JNOV  
law-PI-auto-accidents-negligence  
law-Rule-11-TRCP-11
law-TTCA   
law-WBA (Whistleblower Act)  
law-abstract-questions-of-law  
law-account stated
law admission of expert witness testimony
law-adverse-possession  
law-advisory opinion  
law-age-discrimination  
law-animals
law-annexation
law-arbitration  
law-asbestos litigation
law-attorney-client-disputes  
law-attorneys-fees  
law-breach-of-contract  
law-breach-of-fiduciary-duty  
law-breach-of-warranty  
law-capacity
law-certified questions
law-child-support  
law-choice-of-law
law-citation  
law-civil-commitment  
law-civil-conspiracy  
law-class-actions  
law-condemnation  
law-condominium law
law-construction  
law-consumer-law  
law-contempt  
law-contract
law contract construction interpretation
law-contract formation
law-contract of adhesion
law-conversion
law-credit-card-debt-suit  
law-declaratory-judgment
law-deed
law-deed-restrictions-restrictive-covenants  
law-deemed-admissions  
law-defamation-credit
law-defamation-libel-slander   
law-default-judgment  
law-discovery-disputes
law-discovery-presuit
law-discovery-rule
law-divorce-property-division
law-documents-outside-the-record
law-domestication-enforcement-of-foreign-judgment
law-drivers-license-suspension-DUI-DWI
law-duress-undue-influence  
law-easement   
law-election-law
law-elements-of-contract
law-employment-at-will   
law-employment
law-estoppel
law-execution-enforcement-of-judgment  
law-exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies  
law expert witness testimony admission
law-expunction
law-family-law-international
law-family-law
law-federal-preemption   
law-fire-insurance-liability  
law-food-restaurant-hospitality
law-foreclosure  
law-forfeiture  
law-foreign law
law-forum-selection   
law-fracturing-of-claims
law-fraudulent-concealment-tolling
law-fraudulent inducement
law-frivolous appeal sanctions
law-frivolous suit sanctions
law-governmental-entities-local
law-governmental-entities-state-agencies
law-governmental-immunity  
law-gross-negligence
law-hearsay-objection
law-home-equity-loans
law-home-owner
law-homestead
law-indemnity-indemnify-indemnification  
law-individual-capacity
law-ineffective-assistance-of-counsel  
law-informed-consent
law-insurance-business-regulation
law-insurance-coverage-disputes
law-insurance-duty-to-defend-indemnify
law-insurance-life  
law-intervention
law judgment must conform with pleadings
law-judicial-admission  
law-judicial-notice  
law-judicial-notice-of-foreign-law
law-jury-error  
law-jury-selection  
law-juveniles  
law-leases  
law-lien  
law-limitations  
law-malpractice-legal  
law-malpractice-medical
law-meeting-of-the-minds
law-money-had-and-received  
law-mootness-doctrine  
law more relief than requested
law-motion-for-continuance  
law-motion-for-new-trial  
law-motion for rehearing   
law-motion-to-reinstate  
law-motion-to-show-authority
law-negligence  
law-negligent-entrustment  
law-nonsuit  
law-nuisance
law-official-capacity  
law-official-immunity-defense   
law-oil-and-gas-and-minerals   
law-parental-rights  
law-parole-evidence-rule  
law-partition-of-land   
law-partnership disputes  
law-permanent-injunction
law plea to the jurisdiction - considering evidence
law plea to the jurisdiction denied
law-pleadings-not-evidence
law-plenary-power
law-post-divorce-actions  
law-preemption-federal
law prejudment interest
law-premises-liability
law-presuit discovery
law-prisoner-death
law-prisoner-suits
law-pro-se-suits  
law-probate
law-product-liability  
law-promissory-note  
law-property-taxes  
law-public-employment
law-public-policy grounds
law-ratification  
law-recusal
law reimbursement claim in divorce property division
law-reinstatement
law-religion
law-rescission
law res ipsa loquitur
law-res-judicata-doctrine
law-residential-construction
law-restricted-appeal
law-retaliation  
law-retroactive-application
law-ripeness-doctrine  
law-sales-tax  
law-sanctions  
law-sovereign-immunity  
law-special-appearance  
law-special exception
law-specific-performance
law spoliation presumption
law-standing-doctrine  
law-statutory-construction
law stipulation
law subject matter jurisdiction
law summary judgment standards
law-takings-claim-inverse-condemnation  
law-temporary-orders-TRO  
law-termination-of-parental-rights  
law-test-for-abuse-of-discretion   
law-tortious-interference  
law-trade-secret
law-trade-secrets  
law-turnover-order
law-unauthorized-practice-of-law-UPLC
law-unfair-competition  
law-unjust-enrichment
law-unliquidated-damages
law-venue  
law-vex-lit  
law-void contract void order  
law-voluntary-underemployment   
law-waiver  
law-water  
law-workers-comp  
law-workplace-injury  
plenary-power  
LINKS FOR TEX. SUP. CT. ACTIVITY
Latest Texas Supreme Court Opinions
Jan-June '09 - Table of Cases
2009 Mandamus Decisions
2009 Insurance Law Decisions
2009 HCLC Decisions
Petitions Denied August 2009
Petitions Granted 2009
Other 2009 Texas Supreme Court Orders
Texas Supreme Court Opinions 2008
Tex. Sup. Ct Opinions Jan-June 2008
Tex 2008 Mandamus Opinions
Per Curiam Opinions (Tex. 2008)
Per Curiam Jan-Jun 2008
Texas Supreme Court Orders 2008
Petitions for Review Denied 2008
Petitions Granted in 2008
SUPREME COURT RULINGS
BY LAW SUIT TYPE
PRACTICE AREA
Tex. Opinions by Category (Index)
Medical MalpractIce Decisions
Insurance Law Cases
Family Law Decisions
Consumer Law and Class Actions
Supreme Court Family Law Decisions
JUDICIAL POLITICS PAGES
2008 Judicial Election Campaigns
TEXAS OPINIONS HOME PAGE
Information compiled by
WOLFGANG HIRCZY DE MINO