Texas Supreme Court Opinions (Tex. 2010-2009-2008)

Opinions by Justice Nathan Hecht
Including Concurrences
and Dissents

LAST UPDATED: 5/16/11

May 13, 2011

Nafta Traders Inc. v. Quinn, No. 08-0613 (Tex. May 13, 2011)(Hecht)
“The answer to most questions regarding arbitration ‘flow inexorably from the fact that arbitration is simply a matter of
contract between the parties.’”1 Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court has held in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v.
Mattel, Inc., that the grounds for vacating or modifying an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)2 “are
exclusive” and cannot be “supplemented by contract”.3 The principal questions in this case are whether the Texas General
Arbitration Act (TAA)4 likewise precludes an agreement for judicial review of an arbitration award for reversible error, and if
not, whether the FAA preempts enforcement of such an agreement. We answer both questions in the negative and
consequently reverse the judgment of the court of appeals5 and remand the case to that court for further proceedings.
In the trial court, Nafta invoked the provision of its agreement with Quinn limiting the arbitrator’s authority “to render a
decision which contains a reversible error of state or federal law, or . . . to apply a cause of action or remedy not expressly
provided for under existing state or federal law”, and raised its arguments under this provision for vacating the award. Since
the trial court’s order confirming the award gives no basis for its decision, we must presume that the court rejected Nafta’s
arguments in substance. Nafta raised the same arguments in the court of appeals, but the court did not reach them,
concluding instead that even if meritorious, they were not grounds for vacatur. Because we disagree, the judgment of the
court of appeals must be reversed and the case remanded to that court for consideration of the merits of Nafta’s challenges
to the arbitration award. It is so ordered.
NAFTA TRADERS, INC. v. MARGARET A. QUINN; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-07-00340-CV, 257
SW3d 795, 06-17-08)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Wainwright,
Justice Medina, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, Justice Willett, Justice Guzman, and Justice Lehrmann
joined. [pdf]
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a concurring opinion, in which Justice Wainwright and Justice Lehrmann
joined. [pdf]
See Electronic Briefs in 08-0613 NAFTA TRADERS, INC. v. QUINN

Genesis Tax Loan Services v. Kothmann, No. 09-0828 (Tex. May 13, 2011)(Hecht)
Section 32.06 of the Texas Tax Code provides that a tax lien on real property, which takes priority over many other liens, may
be transferred, under specified conditions, to a person who pays the taxes with the owner’s permission.1 The principal
issue before us is whether those conditions were met in this case. The court of appeals held that the statute does not
permit a verified photocopy of the lien transfer to be recorded when the original has been lost.2 We disagree and hold that
the statutory conditions were met. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand to the trial court.
We conclude that the judgment of the court of appeals must be reversed. We remand the case to the trial court.
GENESIS TAX LOAN SERVICES, INC. AND M. SUZANNE FROSSARD, TRUSTEE v. KODY AND JANET
KOTHMANN AND KODY KOTHMANN, TRUSTEE; from Lubbock County; 7th district (07-08-00070-CV, ___
SW3d ___, 02-27-09)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
See Electronic Briefs in 09-0828 GENESIS TAX LOAN SERVICES, INC. v. KOTHMANN

Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd., No. 08-0989 (Tex. Apr. 15, 2011)(by Green)
We recognized decades ago that agreeing to a merger clause does not waive the right to sue for fraud should a party later
discover that the representations it relied upon before signing the contract were fraudulent. See Dallas Farm Mach. Co. v.
Reaves, 307 S.W.2d 233, 239 (Tex. 1957) (quoting Bates v. Southgate, 31 N.E.2d 551, 558 (Mass. 1941)). The principal
issue in this case is whether disclaimer-of-representations language within a lease contract amounts to a standard merger
clause, or also disclaims reliance on representations, thus negating an element of the petitioner’s claim for fraudulent
inducement of that contract. We conclude that the contract language in this case does not disclaim reliance or bar a claim
based on fraudulent inducement. Accordingly, we reverse the take-nothing judgment of the court of appeals and remand the
case to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We render judgment in favor of the lessee on its claim
for rescission premised on breach of the implied warranty of suitability.
ITALIAN COWBOY PARTNERS, LTD., FRANCESCO SECCHI AND JANE SECCHI v. THE PRUDENTIAL
INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA AND FOUR PARTNERS, LLC D/B/A PRIZM PARTNERS AND D/B/A
UNITED COMMERCIAL PROPERTY SERVICES; from Dallas County;
11th district (11-05-00264-CV, 270 SW3d 192, 07-24-08)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment, renders judgment in part, and remands the case to
that court.
Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Wainwright,
Justice Medina, Justice Johnson, and Justice Lehrmann joined. [pdf]
Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Willett and Justice Guzman joined.
[pdf]
View Electronic Briefs
08-0989 ITALIAN COWBOY PARTNERS, LTD. v. THE PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA

Loftin v. Lee, No. 09-0313 (Tex. Apr. 29, 2011)(Hecht)
The Texas Equine Activity Limitation of Liability Act limits liability for inherent risks of equine activity. This case raises two
issues regarding the proper construction of the Act. One is whether risks are inherent in equine activity only if they relate to
animal behavior or are otherwise unavoidable. As we read the Act, an inherent risk is one that, in its general character, is
associated with activities involving equine animals. The other issue is whether the Act limits liability for failing to fully
assess a person’s ability to participate in equine activity if that failure did not cause injury. We hold it does. We reverse the
court of appeals’ judgment and render judgment for petitioner.
As a matter of law, Loftin’s liability was limited by the Act, and the trial court properly granted summary judgment for Loftin.
Therefore, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and judgment rendered that the Lees take nothing.
TERRI LOFTIN v. JANICE LEE AND BOB LEE; from Angelina County; 12th district (12-07-00143-CV, 277
SW3d 519, 01-30-09)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
See Electronic Briefs in 09-0313 LOFTIN v. LEE

Basic Capital Management, Inc. v. Dynex Commercial, Inc.,No. 08-0244 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2011)
(Hecht)
This is an action for breach of a commitment to provide financing for future real estate investments. The borrowers were to
be entities that would be formed to hold each investment separately as opportunities arose. We hold that the corporate
owners of those entities were third-party beneficiaries of the commitment, and that consequential damages for the lender’s
breach of the commitment were foreseeable. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals1 and remand the case to that
court for further consideration. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the case to that court for further
consideration.
BASIC CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC., AMERICAN REALTY TRUST, INC., TRANSCONTINENTAL REALTY
INVESTORS, INC., CONTINENTAL POYDRAS CORP., CONTINENTAL COMMON, INC., AND
CONTINENTAL BARONNE, INC. v. DYNEX COMMERCIAL, INC. AND DYNEX CAPITAL, INC.; from Dallas
County; 5th district (05-04-01358-CV, 254 SW3d 508, 02-22-08)
motion for leave to amend petition for review dismissed as moot
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs In No. 08-0244 BASIC CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. v. DYNEX COMMERCIAL, INC.

Franka MD v. Velasquez, No. 07-0131 (Tex. Jan 21, 2011)(Hecht)
Section 101.106(f) of the Texas Tort Claims Act provides that a suit against a government employee acting within the
general scope of his employment must be dismissed “if it could have been brought under this chapter [that is, under the
Act] against the governmental unit”.1 The court of appeals construed the quoted clause to mean that, to be entitled to
dismissal, the employee must establish that governmental immunity from suit has been waived by the Act.2 But as we
stated in Mission Consolidated Independent School District v. Garcia: “we have never interpreted ‘under this chapter’ to only
encompass tort claims for which the Tort Claims Act waives immunity.”3 Rather, “all [common-law] tort theories alleged
against a governmental unit . . . are assumed to be ‘under [the Tort Claims Act]’ for purposes of section 101.106.”4
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
[...] we hold that for section 101.106(f), suit “could have been brought” under the Act against the government regardless of
whether the Act waives immunity from suit. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand to the trial court for
further proceedings.
JOHN CHRISTOPHER FRANKA, M.D. AND NAGAKRISHNA REDDY, M.D. v. STACEY VELASQUEZ AND
SARAGOSA ALANIZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIENDS OF THEIR MINOR CHILD, SARAGOSA
MARIO ALANIZ; from Bexar County; 4th district (04-06-00190-CV, 216 SW3d 409, 09-06-06)
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 Wainwright,
Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined. [28 page opinion in pdf]
Justice Medina delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Lehrmann joined. [21-page opinion in pdf]
(Justice Guzman not sitting)
View Electronic Briefs 07-0131 FRANKA, M.D. and NAGAKRISHNA REDDY, M.D. v. VELASQUEZ

UTHSC at San Antonio v. Bailey, No. 08-0419 (Tex. Jan. 21, 2011)(Hecht)
Section 101.106(f) of the Texas Tort Claims Act allows a plaintiff who has sued a government employee in what is
considered to be his official capacity to avoid dismissal of the action by substituting the governmental employer as a
defendant.1 The question in this case is whether action against the substituted defendant is barred after limitations has
run. The court of appeals answered no.2 We agree, though for somewhat different reasons.
Under section 101.106(f), the Baileys’ suit against Sanders was, in all respects other than name, a suit against the Center.
In requiring a government employer to be substituted on the employee’s motion, the statute is silent on whether the
employer may complain of prejudice from the delay in being named a party. In this case, the Center has made no such
complaint. When the Center was substituted as the defendant in Sanders’ place, there was no change in the real party in
interest. Consequently, the Center cannot prevail on its defense of limitations.
For these reasons, the court of appeals’ judgment is Affirmed.
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO v. KIA BAILEY AND LARRY
BAILEY; from Bexar County; 4th district (04-07-00323-CV, 261 SW3d 147, 04-16-08)
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court. [10-page opinion in pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in 08-0419 UNIV. OF TX HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO v. BAILEY

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.

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.

Missouri Pacific RR Co. v. Limmer,
No. 06-0023 (Tex. Oct. 23, 2009)(Hecht) (j udgment on j ury verdict in wrongful dea th case arising from train-
truck collision reversed based on federal preemption)
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY D/B/A UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. PATRICIA
LIMMER, BILLYE JOYCE SMITH, AND BOBBY JEAN NOTHNAGEL; from Harris County;
14th district (14-02-00688-CV, 180 SW3d 803, 11-29-05) 2 petitions
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Wainwright,
Justice Medina, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.
(Justice O'Neill and Justice Guzman not sitting)(Newly appointed Justice Eva Guzman is the author of the
opinion in the court of appeals below)

JURISPRUDENTIAL CURIO: FIRST THE AGENCY SUES, THEN IT CLAIMS THE COURT DOES NOT (YET?)
HAVE JURISDICTION.
ERS of Texas v. Duenez, No. 07-0410 (Tex. Jul 3, 2009)(Brister) (agency exclusive jurisdiction doctrine
does not apply to subrogation claim brought by ERS against former plan participant)
EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF TEXAS v. XAVIER DUENEZ AND IRENE DUENEZ;
from Calhoun County; 13th district (13-05-00729 CV, ___ SW3d ___, 04-05-07 Opinion below)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court dismisses the petition for want of jurisdiction.
Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice O'Neill, Justice
Medina, Justice Green, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion (arguing nonjusticiability)
Justice Wainwright delivered a dissenting opinion, (in which he would hold that the Texas Legislature gave
ERS exclusive jurisdiction over the subrogation dispute), in which Justice Johnson joined.

MAJORITY DENIED MANDAMUS RELIEF IN DISPUTE OVER LEGAL CAPACITY ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT AND ISSUE NO LESS THAN FOUR (4) SEPARATE OPINIONS. - HECHT
DISSENTS
In re Morgan Stanley & Co, Inc. No. 07-0665 (Tex. Jul. 3, 2009)(Medina) (arbitration vs. litigation:
legal (in)capacity of purported party to arbitration agreement, who decides the issue?)
IN RE MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INC., SUCCESSOR TO MORGAN STANLEY DW, INC.; from Dallas
County; 5th district (05-07-00590-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07-17-07 Opinion by the Dallas CoA)
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
Justice Medina delivered the opinion of the Court [pdf], in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Wainwright,
Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice Brister delivered a concurring opinion. [pdf]
Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion. [pdf]
Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion. [5-page pdf opinion] (would have arbitrator - rather
than the court - decide viability of lack-of-legal-capacity defense, in analogy to fraudulent inducement as a
theory to avoid enforcement of a contract)(Justice O'Neill not sitting)

COURT FINDS VAGUENESS AND SPLITS O N EFFECTIVE DATE OF APPELLATE DECISION
Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Chemical Lime, Ltd., (Tex. 2009) No. 06-0911 (Tex. Jun. 26, 2009)
(Hecht)(administrative law, water law, at torney's fees under the UDJA aka DJA)
EDWARDS AQUIFER AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. CHEMICAL LIME, LTD.; from Comal County; 3rd district
(03 -04 -00379 -CV, 212 SW3d 683, 09-14-06)(op. on 2nd motion for rehearing in the court below)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court, [pdf 22 pgs], in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice O’
Neill, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice Medina, Justice Green, Justice Johnson and Justice Willett
joined. [pdf]Justice Brister delivered a concurring opinion. [pdf]
Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion. [pdf]

Barr v. City of Sinton, No. 06-0074 (Tex. Jun. 19, 2009)(Hecht) (Texas Religious Freedom Restoration
Act (TRFRA) enforced in local NIMBY zoning dispute over halfway house for former prisoners run by
pastor)(church and state disputes, religion and the law cases)
PASTOR RICK BARR AND PHILEMON HOMES, INC. v. CITY OF SINTON; from San Patricio County; 13th
district (13-03-00727-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 11-23-05)
motion to take judicial notice granted
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court.

City of San Antonio v. Pollock, No. 04-1118 (Tex. May 1, 2009)(Hecht)
(toxic tort, no municipal liability for public nuisance, takings theory rejected, poison gas leak underground
seepage, causal connection, knowledge of consequences)
CITY OF SAN ANTONIO v. CHARLES POLLOCK AND TRACY POLLOCK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT
FRIENDS OF SARAH JANE POLLOCK, A MINOR CHILD; from Bexar County; 4th district (04-03-00403-CV,
155 SW3d 322, 08-18-04)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Wainwright,
Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined, and in all but Part II-C of which Justice Brister joined.
Justice Medina delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice O'Neill joined.
(Justice Green not sitting)

Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors v. Fielding, No. 07-0490 (Tex. Apr. 17, 2009)(Johnson) (employment
law, enforceability of covenant not to compete, enforceable promise, consideration, at will employment,
confidentiality)
MANN FRANKFORT STEIN & LIPP ADVISORS, INC., MFSL GP, L.L.C., AND MFSL EMPLOYEE
INVESTMENTS, LTD. v. BRENDAN J. FIELDING; from Harris County; 1st district (01-05-01080-CV, 263
SW3d 232, 05-03-07)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court.
Justice Hecht delivered a concurring opinion

TXI Operations, LP v. Perry, No. 05-0030 (Tex. Feb. 27, 2009)(Green)(premises liability, duty of warn of
danger, private road defect, sufficiency of speed limit warning sign)
TXI OPERATIONS, L.P. v. DAVID PERRY; from Liberty County; 9th district (09-04-00070-CV, ___ SW3d
___, 11-18-04)
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice O'Neill, Justice
Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice Medina, and Justice Johnson joined.
Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Medina and Justice Willett joined.

2008 Texas Supreme Court Opinions by Justice Nathan Hecht

OPINION PRODUCTION: In Fiscal Year 2008, Justice Hecht contributed five majority opinions
and four per curiam opinions; he wrote the highest number of dissenting opinions (7) of any
member of the court, issued one concurring opinion and three opinions on denial of review,
bringing the total to 21. The court as a whole handed down 76 majority opinions and 60 per
curiam opinions. Counting all opinions, including dissenting and concurring opinions, 212
opinions were issued in FY 2008, which ended August 31, 2008. The court does not report
statistics by calendar year.

SWBT v. Mitchell, No. 05-0171 (Tex. Dec. 19, 2008)(Hecht)(workers comp, deadline for carrier to
contest compensability of employee's injury)
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, L.P., D/B/A SBC TEXAS v. WILLIAM C. MITCHELL,
BENEFICIARY OF LOUISE MITCHELL, DECEDENT; from Bexar County; 4th district (04-04-00466-CV, ___
SW3d ___, 01-26-05)
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 Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice
Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice O'Neill and Justice Medina joined.
(Justice Green not sitting)

DART v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local No. 1338, No. 06-0034 (Tex. Dec. 19, 2008)(Hecht)
(federal preemption issue)
DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT v. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL NO. 1338; from Dallas
County; 5th district (05-05-00241-CV, 173 SW3d 896, 10-14-05)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and dismisses the case.
Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court.

SSP Parnters and Metro Novelties, Inc., No. 05-0721 (Tex. Nov. 14, 2008)(Hecht)
(products liability, indemnity)
SSP PARTNERS AND METRO NOVELTIES, INC. v. GLADSTRONG INVESTMENTS (USA) CORPORATION;
from Hidalgo County; 13th district (13-02-00671-CV, 169 SW3d 27, 04-07-05)
2 petitions
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court.

Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Nokia Inc., No. 06-1030 (Tex. Aug. 29,2008)(Jefferson)
(insurance coverage, duty to defend)
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AND NATIONAL UNION
FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. NOKIA, INCORPORATED; from Dallas County; 5th district
(05-04-01729-CV, 202 SW3d 384, 08-21-06)
The Court modifies the court of appeals' judgment and affirms that judgment as modified.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice O'Neill, Justice Wainwright,
Justice Medina, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Brister joined.

Federal Ins. Co. v. Samsung Electronics America, No. 06-1040 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Jefferson)
(duty to defend cell phone company against consumer class action found)
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, L.P. F/K/A SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, INC. AND
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; from Dallas County; 5th district
(05-04-01316-CV, 202 SW3d 372, 08-21-06)
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice O'Neill, Justice Wainwright,
Justice Medina, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Brister joined.

Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cellular One Group, No. 07-0140 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Jefferson)
(insurance law, duty to defend, companion case to Zurich v. Nokia)
TRINITY UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. CELLULAR ONE GROUP; from Dallas County; 5th district
(05-04-01641-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 01-09-07)
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice O'Neill, Justice Wainwright,
Justice Medina, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Brister joined.

Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. v. Garza Energy Trust, No. 05-0466 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Hecht)
(oil and gas law, trespass, rule of capture)
COASTAL OIL & GAS CORPORATION AND COASTAL OIL & GAS USA, L.P. v. GARZA ENERGY TRUST
ET AL.; from Hidalgo County; 13th district
(13-02-00136-CV, 166 SW3d 301, 05-05-05)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment, renders judgment in part, and remands the case to the
trial court.
Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Brister, Justice Green, Judge Christopher,
and Justice Pemberton joined, and in all but Part II-B of which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Medina,
Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion.
Justice Johnson delivered an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Chief Justice
Jefferson joined, and in Part I of which Justice Medina joined.
(Judge Tracy Christopher and Justice Robert Pemberton sitting by appointment pursuant to section 22.005
of the Texas Government Code) (Justice O'Neill and Justice Wainwright not sitting)

Koa Holdings, LP v. Young, No. 07-0197 (Tex. June 13, 2008) (Hecht) (restricted appeal, default
judgment)
KAO HOLDINGS, L.P., D/B/A SEBRING APARTMENTS AND WILLIAM KAO v. ANNIE LEE YOUNG; from
Harris County; 14th district (14-05-00398-CV, 214 SW3d 504, 11-21-06)
motion to take judicial notice denied
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court modifies the court of appeals' judgment and affirms that judgment as
modified. Justice Nathan Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court.

Evanston Ins. Co. v. Atofina Petrochemicals, No. 03-0647 (Tex. June 13, 2008)(Substituted opinion by
Justice Paul Green on further motions for rehearing) (insurance case)
Atofina's motion for rehearing granted
Evanston's motion for rehearing denied
The Court's opinion and judgment of February 15, 2008 are withdrawn and the opinion and judgment of
this date are issued. The concurring and dissenting opinion by Justice Hecht, issued February 15, 2008,
remains in place.
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice O'Neill, Justice
Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice Medina, and Justice Willett joined, and in which Justice Hecht and
Justice Johnson joined as to Parts I, II.A–II.D, and II.F.
Justice Hecht delivered an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice
Johnson joined.

Providence Health Center v. Dowell, No. 05-0386 (Tex. May 23, 2008)(Hecht) (HCLC suicide risk
management, medical treatment, suicide liability) (court concludes that discharge from Defendant's ER did
not proximately cause young man's death by hanging.)
PROVIDENCE HEALTH CENTER A/K/A DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY HEALTH SERVICES OF WACO AND
DEPAUL CENTER A/K/A DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY HEALTH SERVICES OF WACO v. JIMMY AND
CAROLYN DOWELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF JONATHAN LANCE DOWELL,
DECEASED; from McLennan County; 10th district (10 -02 -00026 -CV, 167 S .W .3d 48, 03-30-05) (Dissent
by Justice Tom Gray)
- consolidated with -
Pettit, D.O. v. Dowell (Tex. May 23, 2008)
05-0788 JAMES C. PETTIT, D.O. v. JIMMY AND CAROLYN DOWELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
THE ESTATE OF JONATHAN LANCE DOWELL, DECEASED; from McLennan County; 10th district (10-01-
00420-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 08-10-05)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petitions for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Brister, Justice Green, Justice Johnson,
and Justice Willett joined.
Justice Wainwright delivered an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Justice O'Neill delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Jefferson and Justice Medina joined.

First American Title Ins. Co. v. Susan Combs, Comptroller, No. 05-0541 (Tex. May 16, 2008)(Majority
Opinion by Don Willett) (taxation of out-of-state insurers, retaliatory tax)
Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion in First American Title Ins. Co. v. Combs, in
which Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, and Justice Medina joined.

Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee v. American Home Assurance Co., Inc., No. 04-
0138 (Tex. Mar. 28, 2008)(Hecht) (UPLC, regulation of the practice of law, in-house counsel)
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW COMMITTEE v. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC.
AND THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY; from Dallas County; 11th district (11-02-00212-CV, 121 S.
W.3d 831, 11-06-03)
The Court modifies the court of appeals' judgment and affirms that judgment as modified.
Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice O'Neill, Justice
Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice Medina, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice Johnson delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Green joined.

Evans t on Ins. Co. v. Atofina Petrochemicals, Inc., No. 03-0647 (Tex. Feb. 15, 2008)(Justice Green)
(insurance law, indemnification)
EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY v. ATOFINA PETROCHEMICALS, INC.; from Jefferson County; 9th
district (09-02-00072-CV, 104 S.W.3d 247, 04/10/03)
opinion and judgment issued May 5, 2006, withdrawn
substituted opinion issued
motion to dismiss petition for review as improvidently granted, denied
joint motion for oral argument on rehearing, 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, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice O’Neill, Justice
Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice Medina, and Justice Willett joined, and in which Justice Hecht and
Justice Johnson joined as to Parts I, II.A–II.D, and II.F.
Justice Hecht filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice
Johnson joined.

Fairfield Ins. Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, LP , No. 04-0728 (Tex. Feb. 15, 2008)(Justice Wainwright)
(insurance coverage and indemnification of punitive damages arising from gross negligence)
FAIRFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY v. STEPHENS MARTIN PAVING, LP; CARRIE BENNETT, INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ROY EDWARD BENNETT, DECEASED, AND AS NEXT
FRIEND OF LANE EDWARD BENNETT, CODY LEE BENNETT, AND APRIL ANNE BENNETT, MINORS
motion for re-argument denied
The 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 Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht,
Justice O'Neill, Justice Brister, Justice Medina, Justice Green, and Justice Willett joined, and in which
Justice Johnson joined as to Parts I, II, and IV only.
Justice Hecht delivered a concurring opinion, in which Justice Brister, Justice Medina, and Justice
Willett joined.
Justice Johnson delivered a concurring opinion.

Excess Underwriters v. Frank's Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc., No. 02-0730 (Tex. Feb. 1, 2008)
(Substitute opinion on rehearing by Justice Harriet O'Neill; 2005 opinion withdrawn)
(insurance law, right to reimbursement)
EXCESS UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON AND CERTAIN COMPANIES SUBSCRIBING
SEVERALLY BUT NOT JOINTLY TO POLICY NO. 548/TA4011F01 v. FRANK'S CASING CREW & RENTAL
TOOLS, INC.; from Harris County; 14th district (14-01-00349-CV, 93 S.W.3d 178, 06/27/02)
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment. Justice O'Neill delivered the opinion of the Court, in
which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Medina, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Green joined.
Justice Wainwright delivered a dissenting opinion.
(Justice Brister not sitting)

Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Inman, No. 03-1189 (Tex. Feb. 1, 2008)(Opinion by Justice Nathan Hecht)
(consumer law, product liability, class action dismissed on standing grounds, jurisdictional dismissal, DWOJ)
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION v. BILL INMAN, DAVID CASTRO, AND JOHN WILKINS, EACH
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; from Nueces County; 13th
district (13-02-00415-CV, 121 S.W.3d 862, 11/20/03)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and dismisses the case for want of jurisdiction. Justice
Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice Medina, and
Justice Willett joined.
Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Harriet O'Neill, Justice
Paul Green, and Justice Phil Johnson joined.

In Re Brookshire Grocery Co., No. 05-0300 (Tex. Jan. 4, 2008)(mandamus) (Opinion by Wallace Jefferson)
(appellate procedure, post -trial motions, procedure, extension of trial court's plenary jurisdiction)
IN RE BROOKSHIRE GROCERY COMPANY; from Wood County; 6th district (06-05-00033-CV, 160 S.W.3d
288, 03/25/05)
The Court denies the petition for writ of mandamus.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice O'Neill, Justice Medina, Justice
Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, and
Justice Green joined.