Tex. 2010 | List of Texas Supreme Court Opinions Issued in 2010

2010 TEXAS SUPREME COURT CASES
DECIDED WITH OPINIONS

TEXAS APPELLATE CASE LAW LINKS
(Texas Supreme Court Decisions and
appeals court cases in which Petition for
Review was denied)

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 Agreements
law-TTCA
law-WBA
law-abstract-questions-of-law
law-account stated
law-adverse-possession
law-advisory opinion
law-age-discrimination
law-animals
law-annexation
law-arbitration
law-asbesto s 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-construction
law-consumer-law
law-contempt
law-contract
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-domestication-enforcement-of-foreign-judgment
law-drivers-license-suspension-DUI-DWI
law-duress-undue-influence
law-easement
law-election-law
law-employment-at-will
law-employment
law-estoppel
law-execution-enforcement-of-judgment
law-exemplary-damages
law-exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies
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-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-judicial-admission
law-judicial-notice
law-judicial-notice-of-foreign-law
l aw-jury-error
law-jury-selection
law-juveniles
law-leases
law-lien
law-limitations
law-malpractice-legal
law-malpractice-medical
law-money-had-and-received
law-mootness-doctrine
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-plenary-power
law-post-divorce-actions
law-preemption-federal
law-premises-liability
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-ratification
law-recusal
law-reinstatement
law-religion
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-standing-doctrine
law-statutory-construction
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-unliquidated-damages
law-venue
law-vex-lit
law-voluntary-underemployment
law-waiver
law-water
law-workers-comp
law-workplace-injury
plenary-power

2010 Texas Supreme Court Opinions including Dissents

Also see ---> 2011 Texas Supreme Court Opinions (Tex. 2011)

Older opinions: 2 009 Texas Supreme Court Opinions
2008 Supreme Court of Texas Opinions

2007 Supreme Court of Texas

Opinions

December 17, 2010 Opinions

Exxon Corp. v Emerald Oil & Gas Co., No. 05-0729 (Tex. Dec. 17, 2010)(Wainwright)
EXXON CORPORATION AND EXXON TEXAS, INC. v. EMERALD OIL & GAS COMPANY, L.C.; from Refugio
County; 13th district (13-99-00757-CV, 228 SW3d 166, 01-27-05)
The Court's opinion of March 27, 2009 is withdrawn and the opinion of this date is substituted.
The judgment, issued March 27, 2009, remains in place.
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Wainwright delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
(Justice Guzman and Justice Lehrmann not sitting)
Link to E-briefs for Case No. 05-0729 EXXON CORP. v. EMERALD OIL & GAS CO., L.P.

Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Company, No. 05-1076 (Tex. Dec. 17, 2010)(Wainwright)
EXXON CORPORATION AND EXXON TEXAS, INC. v. EMERALD OIL & GAS COMPANY, L.C. AND LAURIE
T. MIESCH, ET AL.; from Refugio County; 13th district (13-00-00104-CV, 180 SW3d 299, 11-29-05)
2 motions for rehearing
The Court's opinion of March 27, 2009 is withdrawn and the opinion of this date is substituted.
The Court reverses and renders judgment, in part, and affirms, in part, the court of appeals' judgment,
and remands the case to the court of appeals
Justice Wainwright delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
(Justice Guzman and Justice Lehrmann not sitting)
Link to E-briefs for Case No. 05-1076 EXXON CORP. v. EMERALD OIL & GAS CO.

Yamada, MD v. Friend, No. 08-0262 (Tex. Dec. 17, 2010)(Johnson)
ROY KENJI YAMADA, M.D. v. LAURA FRIEND, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE ESTATE OF SARAH ELIZABETH FRIEND, DECEASED, AND LUTHER FRIEND, INDIVIDUALLY; from
Tarrant County; 2nd district (02-07-00177-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 02-28-08)
The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals judgment and remands the case to the
trial court.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
Link to E-brief for Case No. 08-0262 ROY KENJI YAMADA, M.D. v. FRIEND

MCI Sales and Service,Inc. v. Hinton, No. 09-0048 (Tex. Dec. 17, 2010)(Guzman)
MCI SALES AND SERVICE, INC., F/K/A HAUSMAN BUS SALES, INC. AND MOTOR COACH INDUSTRIES
MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V., F/K/A DINA AUTOBUSES, S.A. DE C.V. v. JAMES HINTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DOLORES HINTON, DECEASED, ET AL.; from McLennan
County; 10th district (10-06-00256-CV&10-08-00353-CV, 272 SW3d 17, 09-10-08)
3 petitions
motion to take judicial notice granted
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Justice Guzman delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice
Medina, Justice Johnson, Justice Willett, and Justice Lehrmann joined, and in which Chief Justice
Jefferson joined as to Parts I and II. [pdf]
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered an opinion, dissenting in part. [pdf]
(Justice Green not sitting)
Link to E-brief for Case No. 09-0048 MCI SALES AND SERVICE, INC. v. HINTON

THE MOTION FOR REHEARING OF THE FOLLOWING CAUSE IS DENIED:
Gilbert Texas Construction LP v. Underwriters at LLoyd's London, No. 08-0246 (Tex. Dec. 17, 2010)
(Johnson)
GILBERT TEXAS CONSTRUCTION, L.P. v. UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON; from Dallas County;
5th district (05-05-01686-CV, 245 SW3d 29, 12-19-07)
The Court's opinion of June 4, 2010 is withdrawn and the opinion of this date is substituted.
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
(Justice Lehrmann not sitting)
Link to E-brief for Case No. 08-0246
GILBERT TEXAS CONSTRUCTION, L.P. v. UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON

December 03, 2010

Solar Applications Engineering, Inc. v. T.A. Operating Corp., No. 06-0243 (Tex. Dec. 3, 2010)(Wainwright)
(construction dispute, retainage, lien release, forfeiture, condition precedent vs. convenant)
SOLAR APPLICATIONS ENGINEERING, INC. v. T.A. OPERATING CORPORATION; from Bexar County; 4th
district (04-04-00180-CV, 191 SW3d 173, 09-28-06)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Justice Wainwright delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
(Justice Green not sitting)
View Electronic Briefs in Case No 06-0243
SOLAR APPLICATIONS, INC. v. T. A. OPERATING ENG'G CORP.

Texas Comptroller v. AG of Texas and Dallas Morning News, No. 08-0172 (Tex. Dec. 3, 2010) (Jefferson)
(PIA, birth date confidentiality, identity theft)
TEXAS COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AND THE DALLAS
MORNING NEWS, LTD.; from Travis County; 3rd district (03-07-00102-CV, 244 SW3d 629, 01-17-08)
2 petitions
The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Medina, Justice Green, Justice
Guzman, and Justice Lehrmann joined. [pdf]
Justice Wainwright delivered an opinion dissenting in part and concurring in part, in which Justice Johnson
joined. [pdf]
(Justice Hecht and Justice Willett not sitting)
View Electronic Briefs in Case No. 08-0172
TEX. COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

Jelinek, MD v. Casas, No. 08-1066 (Tex. Dec. 3, 2010)(Guzman) (med-mal, expert report)
(MICHAEL T. JELINEK, M.D. AND COLUMBIA RIO GRANDE HEALTHCARE, L.P. D/B/A RIO GRANDE
REGIONAL HOSPITAL v. FRANCISCO CASAS AND ALFREDO DELEON, JR., AS PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF ELOISA CASAS, DECEASED; from Hidalgo County; 13th
district (13-06-00088-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07-29-08)
2 petitions
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment, renders judgment in part, and remands the case to
the trial court.
Justice Guzman delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice
Medina, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined, and in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Green,
and Justice Lehrmann joined as to Parts I and II.A. [pdf]
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered an opinion dissenting in part, in which Justice Green and Justice
Lehrmann joined. [pdf] (sanctions, attorney's fees for defendant)
Justice Lehrmann delivered an opinion, dissenting in part. [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in Case No. 08-1066 MICHAEL T. JELINEK, M.D. v. CASAS

Windmountain Ranch, LLC v. City of Temple, Tx, No. 09-0026 (Tex. Dec. 3, 2010)(per curiam)
(statute of limitations on real estate lien foreclosure, recording requirement for extension agreement not
applicable to bankruptcy court order)
WIND MOUNTAIN RANCH, LLC v. CITY OF TEMPLE, TEXAS; from Bell County; 7th district (07-07-00305-
CV, ___ SW3d ___, 11-25-08)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
Electronic Briefs N/A

UT at Austin v. Hayes, No. 09-0300 (Tex. Dec. 3, 2010)(per curiam) (sovereign immunity)(TTCA state
university held immunity in PI suit by bicyclist who ran into chain/street obstruction dismissed)
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN v. ROBERT HAYES; from Travis County; 3rd district (03-06-
00581-CV, 279 SW3d 877, 03-06-09)
as amended
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and dismisses the case for lack
of jurisdiction.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in case No. 09-0300 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN v. HAYES

Leordeanu v. American Protection Ins. Co., No. 09-0330 (Tex. Dec. 3, 2010)(Hecht)
LIANA LEORDEANU v. AMERICAN PROTECTION INSURANCE COMPANY; from Travis County; 3rd district
(03-06-00529-CV, 278 SW3d 881, 02-13-09)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and affirms the trial court's judgment.
Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Wainwright,
Justice Medina, Justice Green, Justice Willett, Justice Guzman, and Justice Lehrmann joined. [pdf]
Justice Johnson delivered a dissenting opinion. [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs Case No. 09-0330 LEORDEANU v. AMERICAN PROTECTION INS. CO.

In Re Olshan Foundation Repair Co of Dallas, Ltd., No. 09-0432 (Tex. Dec. 3, 2010) (Wainwright)
(consolidation arbitration mandamus proceedings)(arbitration compelled in three of four)
IN RE OLSHAN FOUNDATION REPAIR COMPANY, LLC AND OLSHAN FOUNDATION REPAIR COMPANY
OF DALLAS, LTD.; from Wise County; 2nd district (02-08-00336-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 10-02-08)
stay order issued July 3, 2009, lifted
- and -
09-0433 IN RE OLSHAN FOUNDATION REPAIR COMPANY, LLC AND OLSHAN FOUNDATION REPAIR
COMPANY OF DALLAS, LTD.; from Wise County; 2nd district (02-08-00342-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 10-02-
08)
stay order issued July 3, 2009, lifted
- and -
09-0474 IN RE OLSHAN FOUNDATION REPAIR COMPANY, LLC AND OLSHAN FOUNDATION REPAIR
COMPANY OF DALLAS, LTD.; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-08-01143-CV, 277 SW3d 124, 02-05-
09)
petition for writ of mandamus denied
stay order issued July 3, 2009, lifted
- and -
09-0703 IN RE OLSHAN FOUNDATION REPAIR COMPANY, LLC AND OLSHAN FOUNDATION REPAIR
COMPANY OF DALLAS, LTD.; from Ellis County; 10th district (10-09-00119-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07-01-09)
stay order issued July 3, 2009, lifted
With the exception of 09-0474, the Court conditionally grants the writs of mandamus.
Justice Wainwright delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
Justice Hecht delivered a concurring opinion, in which Justice Medina joined. [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in 09-0432 IN RE OLSHAN FOUND. REPAIR CO., LLC

Christi Bay Temple v. GuideOne Speciality Mutual Ins. Co., No. 09-0683 (Tex. Dec. 3, 2010)(per curiam)
(church and capacity to sue)
CHRISTI BAY TEMPLE v. GUIDEONE SPECIALTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., ET AL.; from Nueces
County; 13th district (13-07-00537-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 03-31-09)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the
trial court.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in 09-0683 CHRISTI BAY TEMPLE v. GUIDEONE SPECIALTY MUT. INS. CO.

Reyes v. City of Laredo, No. 09-1007 (Tex. Dec. 3, 2010)(per curiam) (TTCA, city held immune, no actual
knowledge of road flooding despite 911 calls, drowning death)
MARIA ALEJANDRO REYES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF KAREN
REYES, A/K/A KAREN VAQUERA, DECEASED v. THE CITY OF LAREDO; from Webb County; 4th district
(04-09-00132-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 09-09-09)
2 petitions
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and dismisses the case.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in 09-1007 REYES v. THE CITY OF LAREDO

November 5, 2010

Severance v. Patterson, No. 09-0387 (Tex. Nov. 5, 2010)(Wainright)(certified question from 5th Cir.)
CAROL SEVERANCE v. JERRY PATTERSON, COMMISSIONER OF THE TEXAS GENERAL LAND
OFFICE; GREG ABBOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS; AND KURT SISTRUNK,
DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS
The Texas Supreme Court answers the question certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit.
Justice Wainwright delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Green, Justice
Johnson, Justice Willett, and Justice Guzman joined. [pdf]
Justice Medina delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Lehrmann joined. [pdf]
(Chief Justice Jefferson not sitting)
See E-briefs in 09-0387 SEVERANCE v. JERRY PATTERSON, COMMISSIONER OF THE TEXAS
GENERAL LAND OFFICE

In Re Scheller, No. 09-1072 (Tex. Nov. 5, 2010)(per curiam) (grandparent access suit, mandamus)
IN RE RICHARD SCHELLER; from Travis County; 3rd district (03-09-00678-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 12-23-09)
stay order issued January 4, 2010, lifted
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court
conditionally grants the writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in 09-1072 IN RE RICHARD SCHELLER

October 22, 2010

Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc., No. 06-0714 (Tex. Oct. 22, 2010)(Hecht)(asbestos liability,
retroactive deprivation of right to sue for negligence, unconstitutional, derivative wrongful death survival
action by wife)
BARBARA ROBINSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN
ROBINSON, DECEASED v. CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
SUCCESSOR TO MUNDET CORK CORPORATION; from Harris County; 14th district (14-04-00658-CV,
251 SW3d 520, 05-04-06)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Medina, Justice
Green, Justice Willett, and Justice Lehrmann joined. [pdf]
Justice Medina delivered a concurring opinion. [pdf]
Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion, in which Justice Lehrmann joined. [pdf]
Justice Wainwright delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Johnson joined. [pdf]
(Justice Guzman not sitting)
View Electronic Briefs in No. 06-0714 ROBINSON v. CROWN CORK & SEAL CO., INC.

UT Sw. Med. Ctr. at Dallas v. Estate of Esther, No. 08-0215 (Tex. Oct. 22, 2010)(Jefferson)
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER AT DALLAS v. THE ESTATE OF IRENE
ESTHER ARANCIBIA BY ITS BENEFICIARY VICTOR HUGO VASQUEZ-ARANCIBIA, VICTOR HUGO
VASQUEZ-ARANCIBIA, INDIVIDUALLY, AND CECILIA VASQUEZ-ARANCIBIA, INDIVIDUALLY; from Dallas
County; 5th district (05-07-00499-CV, 244 SW3d 455, 11-20-07)
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Medina, Justice
Green, Justice Willett, Justice Guzman, and Justice Lehrmann joined. [pdf]
Justice Johnson delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Wainwright joined. [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in 08-0215 UNIV. OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER AT DALLAS v.
THE ESTATE OF IRENE ESTHER ARANCIBIA

Texas Industrial Energy Consumers v. Centerpoint Energy et al, PUC, No. 08-0727 (Tex. Oct. 22, 2010)
(Willett)(electricity deregulation)
TEXAS INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMERS v. CENTERPOINT ENERGY HOUSTON ELECTRIC, LLC;
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS; from Travis County; 3rd district (03-06-00285-CV, 263 SW3d
448, 07-25-08) 2 petitions
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in 08-0727 TEXAS INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMERS v. CENTERPOINT ENERGY
HOUSTON ELECTRIC, LLC

Hyde Park Baptist Church v. Turner, No. 09-0191 (Tex. Oct. 22, 2010)(PFR grant withdrawn & pet. denied)
(no opinion)
HYDE PARK BAPTIST CHURCH v. TARA TURNER AND TERRY CURTIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT
FRIENDS OF P.C., A MINOR; from Travis County; 3rd district (03-07-00437-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 01-30-
09)
The Court withdraws its order of May 28, 2010, granting the petition for review, as the petition was
improvidently granted. The petition for review is denied.
View Electronic Briefs in 09-0191 HYDE PARK BAPTIST CHURCH v. TARA TURNER

Sweed v. Nye, No. 09-0465 (Tex. Oct. 22, 2010)(per curiam)(defective notice of appeal held sufficient to
invoke appellate jurisdiction; curable by amendment after deadline)
JAMES LEE SWEED v. JAY L. NYE ET AL.; from El Paso County; 8th district (08-07-00132-CV, ___ SW3d
___, 04-09-09)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that
court.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in 09-0465 SWEED v. NYE

In re 24R, Inc dba The Boot Jack, No. 09-1025 (Tex. Oct. 22, 2010)(per curiam)(arbitration compelled in
employment context)(arb agreement not illusory in at will employment context, handbook not incorporated
by reference as contract)(mandamus granted)
IN RE 24R, INC., D/B/A THE BOOT JACK; from Hidalgo County; 13th district (13-09-00359-CV, ___ SW3d
___, 09-22-09)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court
conditionally grants the writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in 09-1025 IN RE 24R, INC., D/B/A THE BOOT JACK

Vaughn v. Drennon, No. 10-0226 (Tex. Oct. 22, 2010)(per curiam)(presumption of finality of judgment
after conventional trial for purposes of appeal)
MILLARD VAUGHN AND BARBARA VAUGHN v. PAUL DRENNON AND MARY DRENNON; from Sabine
County; 12th district (12-09-00064-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 12-31-09)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that
court.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in 10-0226 VAUGHN v. DRENNON

October 1, 2010

Texas Lottery Comm'n v. First State Bank of DeQueen, No. 08-0523 (Tex. Oct. 1, 2010)(Johnson)
(assignability of lottery wins, statutory construction, reconciliation of alleged conflict)
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)
motion to substitute parties dismissed as moot
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in 08-0523 TEXAS LOTTERY COMM'N v. FIRST STATE BANK OF DEQUEEN

Colquitt v. Brazoria Cty., No. 09-0369 (Tex. Oct. 1, 2010)(per curiam)
(TTCA, timely filing lawsuit as notice of claim, actual notice of claim)
GLENN COLQUITT v. BRAZORIA COUNTY; from Brazoria County; 14th district (14-08-00210-CV, 282
SW3d 582, 01-27-09)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the
trial court.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in 09-0369 COLQUITT v. BRAZORIA COUNTY

Mid-Continental Casualty Co. v. Glober Enercom Mgmt, Inc., No. 09-0744 (Tex. Oct. 1, 2010)(per curiam)
(insurance coverage, exclusions, contract formation, contract construction, acceptance of unilateral
contract)
MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY v. GLOBAL ENERCOM MANAGEMENT, INC.; from Harris County;
14th district (14-07-01006-CV, 293 SW3d 322, 07-21-09)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and
renders judgment.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in 09-0744 MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY CO. v. GLOBAL ENERCOM
MANAGEMENT, INC.

City of Elsa, TX v. Gonzalez, No. 09-0834 (Tex. Oct. 1, 2010)(per curiam)(whistleblower act, good-faith
report of violation of law to appropriate law-enforcement agency, sufficiency of pleaded jurisdictional
allegations).
CITY OF ELSA, TEXAS v. JOEL HOMER GONZALEZ; from Hidalgo County; 13th district (13-07-00555-CV,
292 SW3d 221, 07-09-09)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and dismisses the case.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs 09-0834 CITY OF ELSA, TEXAS v. GONZALEZ

In re B.T., No. 10-0383 (Tex. Oct. 1, 2010)(per curiam)(juvenile case; trial court abused discretion in
proceeding without complete diagnostic study)
IN RE B.T., A JUVENILE; from Smith County; 12th district (12-10-00141-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 05-21-10)
stay order issued May 27, 2010, lifted
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court
conditionally grants the writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in No. 10-0383 IN RE B.T., A JUVENILE

[...]

OPINIONS RELEASED JANUARY thru June 2010
(in reverse chronological order)

Opinions Released June 11, 2010

Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, No. 07-0205 (Tex. Jun. 11, 2010)(Willett) (sexual harassment at work)(state
statutory cause of action under anti-discrimination law preempts common-law claim)
After being sexually harassed by a coworker, Cathie Williams sued her employer, Waffle House, Inc. for (1) sexual
harassment under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA),1 and (2) common-law negligent supervision
and retention. The jury found for Williams on both claims, and she elected to recover on the common-law claim, which
afforded a far greater monetary recovery.
This case poses several issues, including this one of first impression: may a plaintiff recover negligence damages for
harassment covered by the TCHRA? Our view is that the TCHRA, the Legislature’s specific and tailored anti-harassment
remedy, is preemptive when the complained-of negligence is entwined with the complained-of harassment. Here, the
alleged negligence is rooted in facts inseparable from those underlying the alleged harassment. We do not believe the
Legislature’s comprehensive remedial scheme allows aggrieved employees to proceed on dual tracks — one statutory
and one common-law, with inconsistent procedures, standards, elements, defenses, and remedies.
The TCHRA confers both the right to be free from sexual harassment and the remedy to combat it. Where the gravamen of
a plaintiff’s case is TCHRA-covered harassment, the Act forecloses common-law theories predicated on the same
underlying sexual-harassment facts. The root of Williams’ negligence claim is that Waffle House kept around a known
harasser, but this claim does not arise from separate, non-harassment conduct; it is premised on the same conduct that
the TCHRA deems unlawful.
As the complained-of acts constitute actionable harassment under the TCHRA, they cannot moonlight as the basis for a
negligence claim, a claim that presents far different standards, procedures, elements, defenses, and remedies. It is
untenable that the Legislature would craft an elaborate anti-harassment regime so easily circumvented. The court of
appeals erred in affirming the trial-court judgment on Williams’ common-law claim.
Waffle House argued in the court of appeals that the TCHRA should also fail for various reasons if the common-law claim
were reversed. The court of appeals did not reach the issues concerning the statutory claim,82 nor were these issues
briefed to us. Accordingly, the court of appeals’ judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court to address
the statutory sexual-harassment issues raised by Waffle House.
WAFFLE HOUSE, INC. v. CATHIE WILLIAMS; from Tarrant County; 2nd district (02‑05‑00373‑CV, ___
SW3d ___, 02‑01‑07)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice
Wainwright, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Guzman joined. [pdf]
Justice O'Neill delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Medina joined. [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in 07-0205 WAFFLE HOUSE, INC. v. WILLIAMS

State Farm Lloyds v. Page, No. 08-0799 (Tex. June 11, 2010)(O'Neill)(insurance coverage, mold
damage)
Once again we are called upon to interpret the Texas Standard Homeowner’s Policy—Form B, in this instance to decide
whether it affords coverage for mold contamination resulting from plumbing leaks. We hold that when a plumbing leak
results in mold contamination, the policy covers mold damage to personal property but not to the dwelling. Accordingly, we
reverse the court of appeals’ judgment in part, affirm in part, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.
STATE FARM LLOYDS AND ERIN STRACHAN v. WANDA M. PAGE;
from Johnson County; 10th district (10‑07‑00228‑CV, 259 SW3d 257, 06‑11‑08)
The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the
trial court.
Justice O'Neill delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in 08-0799 STATE FARM LLOYDS v. PAGE

Tx. Dep't of Criminal Justice v. McBride, No. 08-0832 (Tex. June 11, 2010)(Jefferson)
(no waiver of governmental/ sovereign immunity based on defendant's request for attorney's
fees)
The Department denied McBride’s allegations, asserted sovereign immunity, and requested attorney’s fees. The trial court
granted the Department’s plea and dismissed the case, but the court of appeals reversed, holding that “the Department’s
claim for attorney’s fees is considered a claim for affirmative relief that waives sovereign immunity.”1 ___ S.W.3d ___. We
disagree.
In this case, McBride, not the Department, filed suit. In its answer, the Department denied McBride’s allegations and
prayed for attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defending the case. Other than fees and costs, the Department asserted
no claims for relief. Unlike Reata, in which the City injected itself into the litigation process and sought damages, the
Department’s request for attorney’s fees was purely defensive in nature, unconnected to any claim for monetary relief.
When that is the case, a request for attorney’s fees incurred in defending a claim does not waive immunity under Reata,
and the court of appeals incorrectly held otherwise.
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE v. KIRK WAYNE MCBRIDE, SR.; from Bee County; 13th
district (13‑06‑00472‑CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07‑31‑08)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that
court.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs 08-0832 TEX. DEPT. OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE v. MCBRIDE

Serros de Gonzalez v. Guilbot, No. 08-0961 (Tex. Jun. 11, 2010)(Willett)(remand, motions to recuse)
This appeal concerns two issues: (1) the procedure required to revest a state court with jurisdiction after remand from
federal court, and (2) the definition of “tertiary recusal motion” in Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 30.016.
We agree with the court of appeals that the hand-filing of a remand order in state court is sufficient to transfer jurisdiction
back to state court. However, the court of appeals erred in holding that section 30.016’s reference to a “tertiary recusal
motion” is limited to a third motion filed by the same party against the same judge. Accordingly, we affirm the court of
appeals’ judgment in part and reverse it in part, and remand to that court with instructions.
he court of appeals was right on remand but wrong on recusal. Plaintiffs’ hand-delivery of the certified remand order from
the federal district court to the clerk of the state court was sufficient to revest jurisdiction in the state court. We decline
Defendants’ invitation to add a measure of rigidity into section 1447(c) that simply is not there. As for recusal, a tertiary
recusal motion is a third motion filed by the same party against any judge. That is, the word “third” in section 30.016(a)
refers to the motion, not to the judge. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals’ judgment in part, reverse it in part, and
remand to the court of appeals. The court of appeals shall abate pending a ruling on the motion to recuse Judge Herman.
If the motion is denied, the court of appeals shall affirm the trial court’s judgment. If the motion is granted, the court of
appeals shall reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand to that court for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
MARIA DEL CARMEN GUILBOT SERROS DE GONZALEZ, ET AL. v. MIGUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ
GUILBOT, CARLOS A. GONZALEZ GUILBOT, AND MARIA ROSA DEL ARENAL DE GONZALEZ; from
Harris County; 14th district (14‑07‑00047‑CV, 267 SW3d 556, 09‑30‑08) 2 petitions
request to take judicial notice dismissed as moot
The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to
that court.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
(Justice Guzman not sitting)
View Electronic Briefs IN THE ESTATE OF MIGUEL ANGEL LUIS GONZALEZ Y VALLEJO v. GUILBOT

UH v. Barth, No. 08-1001 (Tex. June 11, 2010)(per curiam)(jury award in professor's whistleblower suit
against state university thrown out)
[I]n State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876, 883 (Tex. 2009), we held that “the elements of section 554.002(a) can be considered to
determine both jurisdiction and liability.” Accordingly, whether Barth’s reports to University officials are good-faith reports of
a violation of law to an appropriate law-enforcement authority is a jurisdictional question. Jurisdiction may be raised for the
first time on appeal and may not be waived by the parties.   Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 445
(Tex. 1993). The University challenges whether the trial court had jurisdiction. Therefore, without hearing oral argument,
Tex. R. App. P. 59.1, we reverse and remand to the court of appeals to determine whether, under the analysis set forth in
Lueck, Barth’s claims meet the Whistleblower Act’s jurisdictional requirements for suit against a governmental entity and,
thus, whether the trial court had jurisdiction over Barth’s suit.
THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON v. STEPHEN BARTH; from Harris County; 1st district (01‑06‑00490‑CV,
265 SW3d 607, 07‑03‑08)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that
court.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs 08-1001 THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON v. BARTH

Zenith Ins. Co. v. Ayala, No. 09-0292 (Tex. June 11, 2010)(per curiam)(workers comp)
In this workers’ compensation case, the court of appeals concluded that the carrier waived its right to dispute the extent of
the claimant’s compensable injury by failing to adhere to Texas Labor Code section 409.021(c)’s sixty-day deadline. __ S.
W.3d __. We recently held that the sixty-day period for challenging compensability does not apply to a dispute over extent of
injury. State Office of Risk Mgmt. v. Lawton, 295 S.W.3d 646, 649-50 (Tex. 2009). In light of Lawton, we reverse the court of
appeals’ judgment and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Because this dispute involves extent of injury, rather than compensability, section 409.021(c)’s sixty-day deadline is
inapplicable. Without hearing oral argument, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and remand the case to the trial
court for further proceedings. Tex. R. App. P. 59.1, 60.2(d).
ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY v. CARMEN AYALA; from Dallas County; 5th district (05‑08‑00276‑CV,
___ SW3d ___, 02‑26‑09) as supplemented
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the
trial court.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs 09-0292 ZENITH INS. CO. v. AYALA

May 28, 2010

Regenia v. Hidalgo, No. 09-0415 (Tex. 2010)(right to raise argument that could not be raised under prior
law) (per curiam)
LEILA REGENIA BROWN HIDALGO v. ALVIN STEVE HIDALGO;
from Dallas County; 5th district (05-06-00966-CV, 279 SW3d 456, 02-25-09)
Should a party who relies on a then-valid procedural argument in the court of appeals be able to assert
substantive arguments if this Court invalidates the procedural argument while the case is pending? We
answer yes. ...
When Leila briefed her case to the court of appeals, she made a legally meritorious procedural argument
that Order 3 was void as untimely. Further, the court of appeals at that time had no reason to reach the
substantive merits of a jurisdictionally void order. Due to the timing of events, Leila is confronted with a
trial court judgment that she believes is substantively defective, but she has not had the opportunity to
have those arguments heard on appeal. In light of a change in the law and in the interest of justice, Leila
should be allowed to argue to the court of appeals the substantive reasons she believes the trial court’s
judgment was erroneous.
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that
court.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in No. 09-0415 HIDALGO v. HIDALGO

Texas Health Insurance Risk Pool v. Sigmundik, No. 09-0772 (Tex. 2010) (per curiam)
(reduction ordered in recovery of wrongful death plaintiffs in favor of contractual subrogation rights of
insurer who paid medical bill incurred before injured worker died; amount to be determined on remand)
TEXAS HEALTH INSURANCE RISK POOL v. SHARON B. SIGMUNDIK, BENJAMIN J. SIGMUNDIK AND
ZACHARY P. SIGMUNDIK, AS THE SOLE AND LEGAL HEIRS AND BENEFICIARIES OF THOMAS M.
SIGMUNDIK, DECEASED, AND/OR OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS M. SIGMUNDIK, DECEASED; OTTO L.
MONECKE AND VIRGINIA L. MONECKE;
from Fayette County; 3rd district (03-05-00057-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07-31-09)
As we noted in Fortis Benefits, “contract rights generally arise from contract language; they do not derive
their validity from principles of equity but directly from the parties’ agreement.” 234 S.W.3d at 647. Here,
the trial court acknowledged the subrogation provision, quoted it in full, and then denied any distribution
of funds based upon the provision. While the trial court was free to exercise some discretion in dividing
the settlement funds, it abused its discretion by awarding the Risk Pool nothing. The “made whole”
doctrine has no application in this case. Accordingly, in light of our Fortis Benefits decision and without
hearing oral argument in this case, we grant the petition for review, reverse the court of appeals’
judgment, and remand to the trial court to determine what portion of the settlement funds should be
allocated to the estate. See Tex. R. App. P. 59.1.
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the
trial court.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in No. 09-0772 TEX. HEALTH INS. RISK POOL v. SIGMUNDIK

May 14, 2010

State of Texas v. $281,430, No. 08-0465 (Tex. May 14, 2010)(O'Neill)
(civil forfeiture case, truck driver failed to show entitlement to money hidden in truck and unclaimed by
owner)
THE STATE OF TEXAS v. $281,420.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY; from Hidalgo County; 13th
district (13-06-00158-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 04-03-08)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Justice O'Neill delivered the opinion of the Court [pdf]
View E -Briefs in No. 08-0465 THE STATE OF TEXAS v. $281,420.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY

Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, No. 08-0941 (Tex. May 14, 2010) (Green)
(erroneous order dismissing suit after nonsuit with prejudice held to have res judicata effect in the
absence of direct attack by appeal or bill of review)
THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY (THE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD
CONNECTICUT) v. BARRY JOACHIM; from Lubbock County; 7th district (07-06-00322-CV, 279 SW3d
812, 09-25-08)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
See Electronic Briefs in Cause No. 08-0941 THE TRAVELERS INS. CO. v. JOACHIM

May 7, 2010

Eri Consulting Engineers, Inc. v. Swinnea, No. 07-1042 (Tex. May 7, 2010)(Green)
(equitable forfeiture as remedy for breach of fiduciary duty)
ERI CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. AND LARRY G. SNODGRASS v. J. MARK SWINNEA, BRADY
ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., AND MALMEBA COMPANY, LTD.; from Smith County;
12th district (12‑05‑00428‑CV, 236 SW3d 825, 08‑30‑07)
The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to
that court.
Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
See Electronic Briefs in ERI CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. v. SWINNEA

Klein, MD and BCM v. Hernandez, No. 08-0453 (Tex. May 7, 2010)(Tex. May 7, 2010)(Medina)
(medical resident at private state-supported medical school working in public hospital entitled to bring
interlocutory appeal of denial of summary judgment motion based on immunity defense)
GEOFFREY KLEIN, M.D. AND BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE v. CYNTHIA HERNANDEZ, AS THE
PARENT AND NEXT FRIEND OF N.H., A MINOR; from Harris County;
1st district (01‑06‑00569‑CV, 260 SW3d 1, 04‑17‑08) 2 petitions
The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to
that court.
Justice Medina delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion. [pdf]
See Electronic Briefs in GEFFREY KLEIN, M.D. and BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE v. HERNANDEZ

Zimmerman, MD v. Gonzalez Anaya, No. 08-0580 (Tex. May 7, 2010) (Tex. May 7, 2010)(per curiam)
(right to interlocutory appeal of medical resident of state-supported medical school; government employee
status)
GEOFFREY ZIMMERMAN, M.D. v. WENDY GONZALEZ ANAYA, INDIVIDUALLY AND A/N/F OF
CHRISTOPHER GABRIEL HERNANDEZ, DECEASED; from Harris County;
1st district (01‑07‑00570‑CV, ___ SW3d ___, 06‑05‑08)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that
court.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
See Electronic Briefs in GEOFFREY ZIMMERMAN, M.D. v. ANAYA

Scott and White Memorial Hospital v. Fair, No. 08-0970 (Tex. May 7, 2010)(Jefferson)
(premises liability, ice on premises)
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)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment in part and renders judgment.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
See Electronic Briefs in SCOTT AND WHITE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL v. FAIR

In Re Ensco Offshore Int'l Co., No. 09-0317 (Tex. May 7, 2010)(Tex. May 7, 2010)(per curiam)
(forum non conveniens mandamus granted)
IN RE ENSCO OFFSHORE INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, ENSCO INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED AND
ENSCO OFFSHORE COMPANY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF CHILES
OFFSHORE, INC.; from Dallas County;
5th district (05‑08‑01092‑CV, ___ SW3d ___, 08‑19‑08)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court
conditionally grants the writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
See Electronic Briefs in IN RE ENSCO OFFSHORE INTERNATIONAL CO.

City of Dallas v. Carbajal, No. 09-0427 (Tex. May 7, 2010)(per curiam)
(TTCA Tort Claims Act, presuit notice requirement, police report held insufficient to constitute actual
notice)
CITY OF DALLAS v. OLIVIA J. CARBAJAL; from Dallas County;
5th district (05-08-00500-CV, 278 SW3d 802, 01-22-09)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
See Electronic Briefs in CITY OF DALLAS v. CARBAJAL

In Re Odyssey Healthcare, Inc., No. 09-0786 (Tex. May 7, 2010) (per curiam opinion) (arbitration
mandamus granted in employment injury case against nonsubscriber employer, challenges to
IN RE ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE, INC. AND GEORGE PORTILLO; from El Paso County;
8th district (08-09-00174-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 08-12-09) stay order issued October 9, 2009, lifted
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court
conditionally grants the writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
See Electronic Briefs in IN RE ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE, INC.

April 23, 2010

Presidio ISD v. Scott (pdf), No. 08-0958 (Tex. Apr. 23 , 2010)(Guzman)(education law, teacher disciplinary
administrative appeals)
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 Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Justice Guzman delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
See Electronic Briefs in PRESIDIO ISD v. ROBERT SCOTT, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

April 16, 2010

In Re The John G. and Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation, No. 04-0607 (Tex. Apr. 16, 2010)
(Green)
IN RE THE JOHN G. AND MARIE STELLA KENEDY MEMORIAL FOUNDATION; from Kenedy County;
13th district (13-04-00337-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07-06-04)
as reinstated
- consolidated for oral argument with -
04-0608 IN RE FROST NATIONAL BANK, FORMER EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ELENA SUESS
KENEDY, DECEASED; FROST NATIONAL BANK AND PABLO SUESS, TRUSTEES OF THE JOHN G.
KENEDY, JR. CHARITABLE TRUST; AND THE MISSIONARY OBLATE FATHERS OF TEXAS; from Kenedy
County; 13th district (13-04-00339-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07-06-04)
as reinstated, stay order issued July 8, 2004, lifted
The Court conditionally grants the writs of mandamus.
Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
(Justice O'Neill and Justice Guzman not sitting)
See Electronic Briefs in IN RE FROST NAT'L BANK

John G. and Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation v. Fernandez, No. 08-0528 (Tex. Apr. 16, 2010)
(Green)
THE JOHN G. AND MARIE STELLA KENEDY MEMORIAL FOUNDATION v. ANN M. FERNANDEZ;
from Nueces County; 13th district (13-06-00170-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 05-22-08)
unopposed motion to expedite dismissed as moot
The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
(Justice O'Neill and Justice Guzman not sitting)
See Electronic Briefs in 08-0528 THE JOHN G. AND MARIE STELLA KENEDY MEMORIAL FOUND. v.
FERNANDEZ

John G. and Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation v. Fernandez, No. 08-0529 (Tex. Apr. 16, 2010)
(Green)
THE JOHN G. AND MARIE STELLA KENEDY MEMORIAL FOUNDATION v. ANN M. FERNANDEZ; from
Kenedy County;
13th district (13-06-00539-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 05-22-08)
unopposed motion to expedite dismissed as moot
The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
(Justice O'Neill and Justice Guzman not sitting)
See Electronic Briefs in THE JOHN G. AND MARIE STELLA KENEDY MEMORIAL FOUND. v.
FERNANDEZ

Frost National Bank v. Fernandez, No. 08-0534 (Tex. Apr. 16, 2010)(Green)
FROST NATIONAL BANK, FORMER EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ELENA SUESS KENEDY,
DECEASED, AND FROST NATIONAL BANK AND PABLO SUESS, TRUSTEES OF THE JOHN G. KENEDY,
JR. CHARITABLE TRUST v. ANN M. FERNANDEZ; from Kenedy County;
13th district (13-06-00149-CV, 267 SW3d 75, 05-22-08)
unopposed motion to expedite dismissed as moot
The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
(Justice O'Neill and Justice Guzman not sitting)
See Electronic Briefs in 08-0534 FROST NAT'L BANK v. FERNANDEZ

In Re Lisa Laser USA, Inc., No. 09-0557 (Tex. Apr. 16, 2010)(per curiam)
(forum selection clause enforced by mandamus)
IN RE LISA LASER USA, INC. AND LISA LASER PRODUCTS, OHG.; from Travis County;
3rd district (03-09-00240-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 05-15-09)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court
conditionally grants the writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
(Justice Hecht not sitting)
eBriefs N/A

April 9, 2010

Zinc Nacional, S.A. v. Bouche Trucking, Inc ., No. 09-0734 (Tex. April 9, 2010)(per curiam)
(negligence case, non-resident defendant did not have minimum contacts with Texas for purposes of
establishing specific jurisdiction by using a third-party trucking service to transport its goods through
Texas to an out-of-state customer)
ZINC NACIONAL, S.A. v. BOUCHÉ TRUCKING, INC.; from El Paso County; 8th district (08-07-00314-CV,
296 SW3d 763, 07-31-09)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that
court.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
See Electronic Briefs in ZINC NACIONAL, S.A. v. BOUCHÉ TRUCKING, INC.

April 2, 2010

Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith, No. 06-1022 (Tex. April 2, 2010)(Willett)
(bar owner’s liability for injuries caused when one patron assaulted another during a closing-time melee
involving twenty to forty “very intoxicated” customers)
DEL LAGO PARTNERS, INC., AND DEL LAGO PARTNERS, L.P. DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE
ASSUMED NAME OF DEL LAGO GOLF RESORT & CONFERENCE CENTER, AND BMC-THE
BENCHMARK MANAGEMENT COMPANY v. BRADLEY SMITH; from Montgomery County; 10th district (10-
04-00252-CV, 206 SW3d 146, 10-11-06)
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice O'Neill, Justice
Medina, Justice Green, and Justice Guzman joined. [pdf]
Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Johnson joined. [pdf]
Justice Wainwright delivered a dissenting opinion. [pdf]
Justice Johnson delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Hecht joined. [pdf]
See Electronic Briefs in DEL LAGO PARTNERS, INC. v. SMITH

March 26, 2010

SUPREME COURT AGAIN EXPANDS MANDAMUS POWERS - TELLS TRIAL COURT HOW TO RULE ON
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: In re USAA. No. 07-0871 (Tex. Mar. 26, 2010)(Jefferson)(tolling of
limitations if case filed in court without jurisdiction (based on amount in controversy), then refiled in court
of proper jurisdiction depends on willfulness, state of mind, of plaintiff)
IN RE UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION; from Bexar County;
4th district (04-07-00464-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 10-17-07)
The Court conditionally grants the writ of mandamus.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
(Justice Johnson not sitting)
View Electronic Briefs in NO. 07-0871 IN RE UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION (USAA)

ANOTHER MANDAMUS TO OUTSOURCE LITIGATION TO OTHER STATE PER FORUM SELECTION
In re Laibe Corp., No. 09-0426 (Tex. Mar. 26, 2010)(per curiam)
(contractual forum selection enforced by mandamus, laches waiver argument rejected)
IN RE LAIBE CORPORATION; from Wise County;
2nd district (02-09-00089-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 04-24-09)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court
conditionally grants the writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in No. 09-0426 IN RE LAIBE CORPORATION

March 12, 2010

HIGH COURT SPLITS ON APPEALEABILITY OF TRIAL COURT'S ARBITRATION DO-OVER ORDER
East Texas Salt Water Disposal Co., Inc. v. Werline, No. 07-0135 (Tex. Mar. 12, 2010) (Hecht)
(appealability of order ordering re-arbitration under TGAA)
EAST TEXAS SALT WATER DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC. v. RICHARD LEON WERLINE; from Gregg
County; 6th district (06-06-00039-CV, 209 SW3d 888, 12-18-06)
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, Justice
Johnson, Justice Willett, and Justice Guzman joined. [pdf]
Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion. [pdf]
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a dissenting opinion [pdf], in which Justice Medina and Justice Green
joined. [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in 07-0135 EAST TEX. SALT WATER DISPOSAL, CO., INC. v. WERLINE

Spir Star AG v. Kimich, No. 07-0340 (Tex. Mar. 12, 2010)(Jefferson)
(personal jurisdiction in Texas over German corporation operating through distributor)
SPIR STAR AG v. LOUIS KIMICH; from Harris County;
1st district (01-06-00129-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 02-08-07)
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in 07-0340 SPIR STAR AG v. KIMICH

[ILLEGAL] ALIENS ARE HUMANS TOO: EVEN A LIBERAL ARGUMENT WILL DO IF IT SERVES TO
OVERTURN JURY AWARD IN A PI CASE
TXI Transportation Co. v. Hughes, No. 07-0541 (Tex. Mar. 12, 2010)(illegal immigrant status of defendant
in truck-car collision case held prejudicial in jury trial; new trial ordered)
TXI TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, ET AL. v. RANDY HUGHES, ET AL.; from Wise County; 2nd district
(02-04-00242-CV, 224 SW3d 870, 05-24-07)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Justice Medina delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice
O'Neill, Justice Green, Justice Willett, and Justice Guzman joined, and in Part III of which Justice
Wainwright joined. [pdf]
Justice Wainwright delivered an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. [pdf]
(Justice Johnson not sitting)
View Electronic Briefs in 07-0541 TXI TRANSPORTATION CO. v. HUGHES

GO SUE A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL: AGENCY ITSELF IMMUNE TO ULTRA VIRES CLAIM
TxDoI v. Reconveyance Services, Inc ., No. 07-0786 (Tex. Mar. 12, 2010)(per curiam)
(s overeign and governmental immunity, plaintiff should have brought ultra vires claim against agency
official, agency itself enjoys sovereign immunity, government entity entitled to grant of plea to the
jurisdition)
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE v. RECONVEYANCE SERVICES, INC.; from Travis County; 3rd
district (03-06-00313-CV, 240 SW3d 418, 08-31-07)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in 07-0786 TEX. DEPT. OF INS. v. RECONVEYANCE SERVICES, INC.

GOTCHA JURISPRUDENCE: Supreme Court say agreement to extend deadline did not really extend
deadline, therefor Defendant in med-mal suit is entitled to dismissal
Spectrum Healthcare Resources, Inc. v. McDaniel, No. 07-0787 (Tex. Mar. 12, 2010)(Green)
(med-mal suit, health care liability, agreement by agreed docket control order to extend deadline for
expert report nullified)
SPECTRUM HEALTHCARE RESOURCES, INC., AND MICHAEL SIMS v. JANICE MCDANIEL AND PATRICK
MCDANIEL; from Bexar County; 4th district (04-06-00185-CV, 238 SW3d 788, 08-22-07)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and reinstates the trial court's judgment.
Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice
Johnson, Justice Willett, and Justice Guzman joined. [pdf]
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a dissenting opinion (pdf), in which Justice O'Neill and Justice Medina
joined. [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in 07-0787 SPECTRUM HEALTHCARE RESOURCES, INC. v. MCDANIEL

First Court of Appeals tried to outsupreme the Supremes on behalf of med-mal defendants: SoL does not
bar med-mal suit over surgical sponge left in body and undiscovered after all, but only for so many years
(see below):
Walters v. Cleveland Regional Medical Center No. 08-0169 (Tex. Mar. 12, 2010)(Willett)
(medical malpractice, surgical sponge left in body of patient, statute of limitations, open courts argument)
TANGIE WALTERS v. CLEVELAND REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, SHIRLEY KIEFER, AND KEITH
SPOONER, M.D.; from Harris County; 1st district (01-06-01068-CV, 264 SW3d 154, 12-20-07)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in 8-0169 WALTERS v. CLEVELAND REGIONAL MED. CENTER

SUPREME ENDORSE ABSOLUTE PROTECTION: Tough luck, lady - The Legis wants you to lose
STATUTE OF REPOSE USED TO DEFEAT OBVIOUS (RES IPSA LOQUITUR) MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
INVOLVING SURGICAL SPONGE LEFT IN WOMAN'S BODY AFTER HYSTERECTOMY:
Methodist Healthcare Systems of San Antonio, Ltd. v. Rankin, No. 08-0316 (Tex. Mar. 12, 2010)(Willett)
(statute of repose, health care liability claim, res ipsa loquitur)
METHODIST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM OF SAN ANTONIO, LTD., L.L.P., W.C. SCHORLEMER, M.D., AND
ROBERT SCHORLEMER, M.D. v. EMMALENE RANKIN; from Bexar County;
4th district (04-07-00305-CV, 261 SW3d 93, 03-05-08) 2 petitions
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs 08-0316 METHODIST HEALTHCARE SY S TEM OF SAN ANTONIO, LTD., L.L.P. v.
RANKIN

SUPREMES ADD YET ANOTHER FACET TO MANDAMUS JURISPRUDENCE ; GRANT MANDAMUS
AFTER SUPREME COURT APPEAL TO MAKE SURE EXEMPLARY DAMAGES IN RARE PLAINTIFF'S WIN
GET REDUCED
In Re Columbia Med. Center of Las Colinas, Inc., No. 09-0733 (Tex. Mar. 12, 2010)(per curiam)
(exemplary damages reduced by mandamus after post-appeal final judgment)
IN RE COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER OF LAS COLINAS, INC. D/B/A LAS COLINAS MEDICAL CENTER;
from Dallas County
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court
conditionally grants the writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in 09-0733 IN RE COLUMBIA MED. CTR. OF LAS COLINAS, INC.

February 19, 2010 Tex. Opinions

SWBT Co. v. Marketing on Hold, Inc,. No. 05-0748 (Tex. Feb. 19, 2010)(Majority opinion by Wainwright)
(class action undone, class de-certified in interlocutory appeal, standing)
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY v. MARKETING ON HOLD, INC. D/B/A SOUTHWEST
TARIFF ANALYST; from Cameron County; 13th district (13-03-00287-CV, 170 SW3d 814, 08-04-05)
emergency motion for expedited decision dismissed as moot
motion to dismiss denied
motion for damages and sanctions denied
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Justice Wainwright delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Green, Justice
Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice Harriet O'Neill delivered a dissenting opinion in SW Bell Telephone Co. v. Markeing on Hold (Tex.
2010) in which Chief Justice Jefferson and Justice Medina joined. (Justice Guzman not sitting)

City of Waco v. Kelley, No. 07-0485 (Tex. Feb. 19, 2010)(Johnson)(public employment, municipal civil
service disciplinary proceeding, judicial review of hearing examiner's decision, jurisdiction issue)
CITY OF WACO, TEXAS v. LARRY KELLEY; from McLennan County;
10th district (10-03-00214-CV, 226 SW3d 672, 05-02-07)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court
Justice Phil Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court.

City of Dallas v. Abbott, AG, No. 07-0931 (Tex. Feb. 19, 2010)(Majority opinion by O'Neill)(Public
Information Act (PIA)) (exceptions from mandatory disclosure)
CITY OF DALLAS v. GREG ABBOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS; from Travis County;
7th district (07-06-00161-CV, 279 SW3d 806, 08-13-07)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice O'Neill delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice
Medina, Justice Green, and Justice Guzman joined.
Justice Dale Wainwright delivered a dissenting opinion in City of Dallas v. Abbott,
in which Justice Johnson joined.
(Justice Willett not sitting)

In re ADM Investor Services, Inc., No. 08-0570 (Tex. Feb. 19, 2010)(Opinion by Green) (forum selection
clause enforced by mandamus) (poor health of elderly plaintiff as reason for keeping case in Texas
rejected)
IN RE ADM INVESTOR SERVICES, INC.; from Rains County;
12th district (12-08-00125-CV, 257 SW3d 817, 06-30-08)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court
conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court.
Justice Don R. Willett delivered a concurring opinion in In re ADM Investor Services, Inc.
View Electronic Briefs

February 12, 2010: SUPREMES ISSUE 3 PER CURIAMS

Galveston ISD v. Jaco, No. 09-0195 (Tex. Feb. 12, 2010)(per curiam)
(WBA case remanded to the court of appeals to determine whether plaintiff has alleged a violation under
the Texas Whistleblower Act under the court's new precedent in Lueck, which jurisdictionalized the
sufficiency of the facts pleaded in support of each element of the claim)
GALVESTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. BRENT JACO; from Galveston County;
14th district (14-08-00271-CV, 278 SW3d 477, 01-20-09)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that
court. Per Curiam Opinion
(Justice Guzman not sitting) [she wrote the opinion in the court below]

In the Matter of RD, No. 09-0343 (Tex. Feb. 12, 2010)(per curiam)(juvenile proceedings, civil rules applied
to motion for new trial, error preservation for appellate review)
The Texas Supreme Court concludes that [the juvenile's] general challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence to support the jury's delinquency finding met Rule 324's requirement for preserving his
challenge to the jury's rejection of his affirmative defense.
IN THE MATTER OF R.D., A JUVENILE; from Bexar County; 8th district (08-07-00100-CV, ___ SW3d ___,
03-12-09)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that
court.
Per Curiam Opinion

ORDERS ON PETITIONS FOR REVIEW: THE FOLLOWING PETITION FOR REVIEW IS ABATED:
Gallagher Headquarters Ranch Development, Ltd., No. 08-0773 (Tex. Feb. 12, 2010)(per curiam)(petition
abated, findings of fact requested from trial court, scope of release pursuant to settlement at issue)
GALLAGHER HEADQUARTERS RANCH DEVELOPMENT, LTD., CHRIS HILL AND JULIE HOOPER v. CITY
OF SAN ANTONIO AND CITY PUBLIC SERVICE; from Bexar County; 4th district (04-07-00325-CV, 269
SW3d 628, 07-23-08) abatement order issued
The petition is abated and remanded to the trial court for findings of fact. The trial court shall submit its
findings to this Court no later than May 3, 2010. The parties may, within thirty days after the trial court's
findings are submitted, provide a supplementary brief to this Court.
Per Curiam Opinion
(Justice Hecht not sitting)

January 22, 2010 OPINIONS ISSUED BY THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT

In re JHG, No. 09-0531 (Tex. Jan. 22, 2010) (per curiam)
(termination of parental rights appeal, statement of points)
IN RE J.H.G.; from Collin County; 5th district (05-08-00875-CV, 290 SW3d 400, 05-14-09)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that
court.
Per Curiam Opinion
View Electronic Briefs

January 15 , 2010 OPINIONS ISSUED BY THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT

Carroll v. Carroll, No. 08-0644 (Tex. Jan. 22, 2010)(per curiam)(proceedings concerning trust, trustee
removal, suit for accounting by trustee belong in district court, not county court)
JOHNNY CARROLL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE JOHNNY CARROLL TRUST v. LETHA
FRANCES CARROLL AND DONALD CARROLL; from Hill County; 10th district (10-07-00006-CV, ___
SW3d ___, 05-14-08)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment, vacates the county court's
judgment, and remands the case to the county court.
Per Curiam Opinion

Kelly v. General Interior Construction, Inc., No. 08-0669 (Tex. Jan. 22, 2010)(Guzman)(no personal
jurisdiction, out-of-state officers of construction company should have been granted special appearance,
no minimum contacts shown)
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)
The Court reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Eva M. Guzman delivered the opinion of the Court.

In re United Scaffolding, Inc., No. 09-0403 (Tex. Jan. 22, 2010)(per curiam)
(grant of new trial after jury verdict requires explanation pursuant to recently established new precedent)
IN RE UNITED SCAFFOLDING, INC.; from Jefferson County; 9th district (09-09-00098-CV, 287 SW3d 274,
04-16-09)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court
conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion