Texas Supreme Court Opinions (Tex. 2010-2009-2008) | Jefferson, Wallace B., Chief Justice

Jefferson Opinions

LAST UPDATED: 5/16/11

Ojo v. Farmers Group Inc., No. 10-0245 (Tex. May 27, 2011)(Green)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified to this Court the following question:
Does Texas law permit an insurance company to price insurance by using a credit-score factor that has a racially disparate
impact that, were it not for the [McCarran-Ferguson Act],1 would violate the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–19,
absent a legally sufficient nondiscriminatory reason, or would using such a credit-score factor violate Texas Insurance Code
sections 544.002(a), 559.051, 559.052, or some other provision of Texas law?
Ojo v. Farmers Group, Inc., 600 F.3d 1201, 1204–05 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (per curiam). Pursuant to Article 5, section 3-c
of the Texas Constitution and Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 58.1, we answer that Texas law prohibits the use of race-
based credit scoring, but permits race-neutral credit scoring even if it has a racially disparate impact.
PATRICK O. OJO, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. FARMERS GROUP, INC., FIRE
UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION, FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION, AND
FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE
The Court answers the question certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Wainwright, Justice Medina,
Justice Johnson, Justice Guzman, and Justice Lehrmann joined, and in which Justice Willett joined as to Parts I, II, III.A-B, IV,
and V. [pdf]
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a concurring opinion. [pdf]
So what does the Court’s survey of legislative history tell us today? The Court makes no attempt to construct the statute’s
meaning by looking at its history. Instead, it gives us information that, while not essential to our interpretation of the
Insurance Code, is far from irrelevant: “The legislative history of the credit scoring bill and the arguments of its opponents
indicates that the Texas Legislature was aware of the possibility of a disparate impact on racial minorities, yet did not
expressly provide for a disparate impact claim as it did in the Texas Labor Code.” ___ S.W.3d at ___. Thus, we are told that
the statute says what it says because the Legislature intended that meaning.15 This fact has no bearing on our
interpretation, and we would interpret clear language the same regardless of whether or not the Legislature had given
thought to the specific issue before us. The inclusion of this history gives notice to those who feel wronged by the statute.
The remedy they seek requires engagement in the political process, on the legislative battlefield. Moreover, it gives those
same aggrieved citizens some indication of why the Legislature would have made the choice that it did, allowing them to
hone their advocacy. For those who support the statute, this language’s relevance is much the same. This guidance will not
harm democracy, our reputation, or the bar, and indeed it may help.
Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion. [pdf]
See Electronic Briefs in 10-0245 PATRICK O. OJO v. FARMERS GROUP, INC.

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.
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.
This case asks whether parties can agree to “try” a case privately, but then enlist state courts to review the
decision for reversible errors of state or federal law. I agree with the Court that the agreement is
enforceable under the TAA, Hall Street notwithstanding. ___ S.W.3d at ___. I write only to observe that our
system is failing if parties are compelled to arbitrate because they believe our courts do not adequately
serve their needs. If litigation is leaving because lawsuits are too expensive, the bench and the bar must
rethink the crippling burdens oppressive discovery imposes. If courts have yet to embrace modern case-
management practices, the Legislature should ensure that the justice system has resources to improve
technology and to hire qualified personnel—two sure ways to improve efficiency. [pdf]
See Electronic Briefs in 08-0613 NAFTA TRADERS, INC. v. QUINN

In Re Universal Underwriters of Texas Inc. Co., No. 10-0238 (Tex. May 6, 2011)(Jefferson)
Appraisal clauses, a common component of insurance contracts, spell out how parties will resolve disputes concerning a
property’s value or the amount of a covered loss. When the parties disagree, but neither seeks appraisal until one has filed
suit, has the party demanding appraisal waived its right to insist on the contractual procedure? Because we conclude that,
absent conduct indicating waiver and a showing of prejudice, it has not, we conditionally grant relief.
We have held that mandamus relief is appropriate to enforce an appraisal clause because denying the appraisal would
vitiate the insurer’s right to defend its breach of contract claim. In re Allstate Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 85 S.W.3d 193, 196 (Tex.
2002). There, as here, “the parties . . . agreed in the contracts’ appraisal clause to the method by which to determine whether
a breach has occurred,” and, if the appraisal determined that the full value was what the insurer offered, there would be no
breach of contract. Id. The same is true here. We conditionally grant the writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to grant
Universal’s motion to compel appraisal.5 See id. (holding that refusal to order appraisal would “den[y] the development of
proof going to the heart of a party’s case and cannot be remedied by appeal”). We are confident the trial court will comply,
and our writ will issue only if it does not.
IN RE UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS OF TEXAS INSURANCE COMPANY; from Tarrant County; 2nd district
(02-10-00013-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 03-23-10)
stay order issued April 23, 2010 lifted
The Court conditionally grants the writ of mandamus.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
(Justice Lehrmann not sitting)
See Electronic Briefs in 10-0238 IN RE UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS OF TEX. INS. CO. (multiple amicus
briefs)

Roccaforte v. Jefferson County, No. 09-0326 (Tex. Apr. 29, 2011)(Jefferson)
The Local Government Code requires a person suing a county to give the county judge and the county or district attorney
notice of the claim. Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 89.0041. The plaintiff provided that notice here, but did so by personal service of
process, rather than registered or certified mail as the statute contemplates. We conclude that when the requisite county
officials receive timely notice enabling them to answer and defend the claim, the case should not be dismissed. Because
the court of appeals concluded otherwise, we reverse its judgment and remand the case to the trial court for further
proceedings.
LARRY ROCCAFORTE v. JEFFERSON COUNTY; from Jefferson County; 9th district (09-08-00420-CV, 281
SW3d 230, 03-05-09)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice
Medina, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, Justice Guzman, and Justice Lehrmann joined, and in which
Justice Willett joined as to parts I through III. [pdf]
Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion. [pdf]
See Electronic Briefs in 09-0326 ROCCAFORTE v. JEFFERSON COUNTY

RR Comm'n v. Texas Citizens for a Safe Future and Clean Water,
No. 08-0497 (Tex. Mar. 11, 2011)(Guzman)
The Texas Water Code requires the Railroad Commission of Texas to weigh the “public interest” in the permitting of
proposed oil and gas waste injection wells. In a ruling, the Commission declined to consider traffic-safety factors in its
public interest inquiry. We determine whether the Commission’s interpretation of “public interest” is entitled to judicial
deference. Because we conclude the Commission’s construction of the phrase was reasonable and in accord with the plain
language of the statute, we hold the court of appeals erred in not deferring to the Commission’s interpretation. We therefore
reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and render judgment for the petitioners in accordance with the trial court’s original
judgment.
The court of appeals failed to grant deference to the Commission’s interpretation of “public interest” in section 27.051(b)(1)
of the Water Code and instead held the Commission abused its discretion in its construction of the statute. Because we
conclude the Commission’s interpretation of the phrase “public interest” is reasonable and in accord with the plain meaning
of the statute, we hold the court of appeals erred in refusing to defer to the Commission’s construction of the term.
Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and render judgment for the Commission and Pioneer in accordance
with the trial court’s original judgment.
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS AND PIONEER EXPLORATION, LTD. v. TEXAS CITIZENS FOR A
SAFE FUTURE AND CLEAN WATER AND JAMES G. POPP; from Travis County; 3rd district (03-07-00025-
CV, 254 SW3d 492, 12-06-07)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Guzman delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice
Medina, Justice Green, and Justice Johnson joined. [pdf]
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Willett
and Justice Lehrmann joined. [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs 08-0497
RAILROAD COMM'N OF TX v. TX CITIZENS FOR A SAFE FUTURE AND CLEAN WATER

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

No Immunity Waiver Effected By Governmental Defendant's Request for Attorney's Fees
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)
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

NO PREMISES LIABILITY FOR ICE ON GROUND
Scott and White Memorial Hospital v. Fair, No. 08-0970 (Tex. May 7, 2010)(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

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)

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.
Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Medina and Justice Green
joined.

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]

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 (criticising retroactive application of novel
rule) in which Justice O'Neill and Justice Medina joined. [pdf]

2009 Supreme Court Opinions by Chief Justice Jefferson,
Concurrences, and Dissents

Miga v. Jensen, No. 07-0123 (Tex. Oct. 23, 2009)(Jefferson)
(collection of paid judgment upon reversal of the judgment on appeal),
reversal of judgment restitution, unjust enrichment)
DENNIS L. MIGA v. RONALD L. JENSEN; from Tarrant County;
2nd district (02-05-00277-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 11-30-06)
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court.

Smith v. Patrick W. Y. Tam Trust, No. 07-0970 (Tex. Oct. 23, 2009)(Jefferson)
(reasonableness of attorneys fees when recovery of damages is less than what was sought)
LAURI SMITH AND HOWARD SMITH v. PATRICK W.Y. TAM TRUST; from Collin County;
5th district (05-06-00356-CV, 235 SW3d 819, 07-31-07)
The Court reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court.

SUPREMES AGAIN GRANT REVIEW TO VINDICATE HEALTH CARE DEFENDANT'S CLAIM TO SANCTIONS
AFTER ABORTIVE MED-MAL SUIT - INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL CONCERNING EXPERT REPORT
OBJECTIONS WAS NOT REQUIRED AS A PRELUDE.
Hernandez, MD v. Ebrom, No. 07-0240 (Tex. Jul 3, 2009)(Johnson) (HCLC, does med-mal defendant forfeit
right to seek sanctions by failing to pursue by interlocutory appeal challenge to expert report where
objection was overruled by the trial court?)
MIGUEL HERNANDEZ, M.D. v. JULIOUS EBROM AND RICHARD HUNNICUTT; from Hidalgo County;
13th district (13-06-00053 CV, ___ SW3d ___, 02-08-07 Opinion of the court below)
opposed motion for leave to file post-submission brief granted
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice
Brister, Justice Green, and Justice Willett joined. [pdf]
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice O'Neill and Justice Medina
joined. [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in Tex. 2009 No. 07-0240 MIGUEL HERNANDEZ, M.D. v. EBROM

PROBATE: RIGHT TO SURVIVORSHIP WITH RESPECT TO ASSETS/ACCOUNTS BETWEEN SPOUSES
Holmes v. Beatty, No. 07-0784 (Tex. Jun. 26, 2009)(Jefferson)(probate law, right to survivorship
accounts, community property survivorship agreement)
HARRY HOLMES, II, INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS J. HOLMES, SR.,
DECEASED AND AS TRUSTEE OF ANY TRUST NAMED AS A LEGATEE IN THE WILL OF THOMAS J.
HOLMES, SR., DECEASED v. DOUGLAS G. BEATTY, INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF
KATHRYN V. HOLMES, DECEASED; from Harris County; 14th district (14 -03 -0066 3-CV, 233 SW3d 475, 08-
14-07) | Electronic briefs in Holmes v. Beatty No. 07-0784 (Tex. 2009)

consolidated with

Holmes v. Beatty (htm), No. 07-0785 (Tex. Jun. 26, 2009)(Jefferson)(nontestamentary transfer of assets
between spouses, right to survivorship accounts)
HARRY HOLMES, II, INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS J. HOLMES, SR.,
DECEASED AND AS TRUSTEE OF ANY TRUST NAMED AS A LEGATEE IN THE WILL OF THOMAS J.
HOLMES, SR., DECEASED v. DOUGLAS G. BEATTY, INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF
KATHRYN V. HOLMES, DECEASED; from Harris County; 14th district (14 -05 -00474 -CV, 233 SW3d 494, 08-
14-07) 2 petitions
The Court reverses and renders in part and affirms in part the court of appeals' judgment.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf 19 pgs]
View Electronic Briefs for 07-0785

HOW MANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SUFFICE O N AN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PANEL?
In the Matter of Allison, No. 08-0705 (Tex. Jun. 26, 2009)(Jefferson)
(attorney disciplinary appeal, dispute about minimum level of public's representation on panel, rounding up
or down)
IN THE MATTER OF BOMA O. ALLISON
The Court affirms the Board of Disciplinary Appeals' judgment.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in ALLISON v. COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE (Tex. 2009)

Nonanswering Defendant May Be Served with Amended Petition by Certified Mail Even If
More Onerous Relief Is Sought in Amended Pleading - Second Citation No Longer
Necessary
In the Interest of EA, No. 08-0157 (Tex. Jun. 5, 2009)(Jefferson)
(method of service of amended petition, sufficiency of service by certified mail under rule 21a when
Defendant has been served with civil process, but has not filed an answer or made appearance)
IN THE INTEREST OF E.A. AND D.A., CHILDREN; from Wichita County; 2nd district (02-07-00215-CV, ___
SW3d ___, 12-06-07)
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 remands the case to the trial
court.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice O'Neill, Justice
Medina, Justice Green, and Justice Johnson joined.
Justice Scott A. Brister delivered a concurring opinion, in which Justice Wainwright and Justice Willett joined.
(default judgment not to be based on amended petition seeking more onerous relief against nonanswering
defendant if not served with new citation)

Ultra Vires Suit as Exception to Sovereign Immunity Bar: City of El Paso v. Heinrich, No.
06-0778 (Tex. May 1, 2009)(Jefferson) (governmental immunity, retrospective vs. prospective relief,
monetary equitable relief against official capacity defendant, individual capacity and official immunity, plea
to the jurisdiction)
THE CITY OF EL PASO, ET AL. v. LILLI M. HEINRICH; from El Paso County; 8th district (08-05-00203-CV,
198 SW3d 400, 07-20-06)
The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the
trial court.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court.

Harris County Hospital District v. Tomball Regional Hospital, No. 05-0986 (Tex. May 1, 2009)(Johnson)
(sovereign immunity of hospital district, Tooke v. City of Mexia progeny, sue and be sued language)
HARRIS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT v. TOMBALL REGIONAL HOSPITAL; from Harris County; 14th
district (14-04-00263-CV, 178 SW3d 244, 07-28-05)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and dismisses the case.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice
Medina, and Justice Green joined.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice O'Neill, Justice Brister, and
Justice Willett joined. (plaintiff should be permitted to pursue equitable relief for constitutional violation)

Telephone Company not entitled to reimbursement of relocation cost occasioned by toll
road construction: SWBT v. Harris County Toll Road Authority, No. 06-0933 (Tex. 2009)
(Jefferson)(eminent domain, county entity immune to claim for reimbursement of costs of telephone line
relocation necessitated by toll road project, SWBT has no vested property interest in use of public way for
transmission equipment).
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE, L.P., D/B/A SBC TEXAS v. HARRIS COUNTY TOLL ROAD
AUTHORITY AND HARRIS COUNTY; from Harris County; 1st district (01-05-00668-CV, 263 SW3d 48, 09-
14-06)
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court.

Effect of failure to give prompt notice of claim:
Prodigy Communications Corp. v. Agricultural Excess & Surplus Insurance, No. 06-0598
(Tex. Mar. 27, 2009)(Jefferson) (insurance law, effect of noncompliance with prompt notice requirement as
condition precedent for coverage of claim, consideration of prejudice to insurer)
PRODIGY COMMUNICATIONS CORP. v. AGRICULTURAL EXCESS & SURPLUS INSURANCE
COMPANY, N/K/A GREAT AMERICAN E & S INSURANCE COMPANY AND GREAT AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-05-00442-CV, 195 SW3d 764, 05-30-06)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment, renders judgment in part, and remands the case to
the trial court.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice O'Neill, Justice Wainwright,
Justice Brister, Justice Medina, and Justice Green joined.
Justice Wainwright delivered a concurring opinion.
Justice Johnson delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Hecht and Justice Willett joined.

Texas Supreme Court another insurance law question from the Fifth Circuit:
Financial Industries Corp. v. XL Specialty Ins. Co., No. 07-1059 (Tex. Mar. 27, 2009)(Jefferson)
(cert. question from the 5th Circuit) (insurance law, effect of insured's failure to give insurer prompt notice
of claim, prejudice criterion)
FINANCIAL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION v. XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
The Court answers the question certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court.

2008 Texas Supreme Court Opinions by Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson

PRODUCTIVITY: In Fiscal Year 2008, Chief Jefferson wrote 10 majority opinions, four per
curiams, 7 separate opinions (concurring or dissenting, or both in part), for a total of 21. The Court
as a whole delivered 212 opinions over the course of 12 months, 76 of which were majority
opinions. (The Texas Supreme Court Opinion does not report statistics by calendar year.)

Jury Selection: Peremptory Strikes Found Motivated by Race Require Reversal of Judgment in
Employment Discrimination Case
Davis v. Fisk Electric Co., No. 06-0162 (Tex. Sep. 26, 2008)(Jefferson)
(jury selection, denial of Batson challenge to race-based juror strike was error, new trial ordered)
DONALD DAVIS v. FISK ELECTRIC COMPANY, FISK TECHNOLOGIES & FISK MANAGEMENT, INC.; from
Harris County; 14th district (14-04-00790-CV, 187 SW3d 570, 01-12-06)
The Court reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justice Hecht, Justice O'Neill, Justice
Wainwright, Justice Medina, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett.
Justice Brister delivered a concurring opinion, in which Justice Medina joined as to Part III.

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.

Ulico Casualty Co. v. Allied Pilots A ssociation, No. 06-0247 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Johnson)
(insurance coverage, non-coverage claim, waiver, estoppel)
ULICO CASUALTY COMPANY v. ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION; from Tarrant County; 2nd district
(02-04-00120-CV, 187 SW3d 91, 12-15-05)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a concurring opinion, in which Justice O'Neill joined.

Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert, No. 05-0916 (Tex. June 27, 2008) (Majority Opinion by
Justice Medina) (con law, church and state religion disputes, first amendment freedom of religion clause,
exorcism of demons, intentional tort claim by church member for mental anguish damages barred by
church's religious doctrine immunity, estoppel claim rejected)
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Green joined, and in Parts II-A,
III, and IV of which Justice Johnson joined.
Justice Green delivered a dissenting opinion.
Justice Johnson delivered a dissenting opinion.

JCW Electronics, Inc. v. Garza, No. 05-1042 (Tex. June 27, 2008) (Opinion by Justice David Medina)
(UCC breach of implied warranty claim in PI, death case a tort for purposes of comparative responsibility
statute; recovery barred)
JCW ELECTRONICS, INC. v. PEARL IRIZ GARZA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF
ROLANDO DOMINGO MONTEZ, DECEASED, AND BELINDA LEIGH CAMACHO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
NEXT FRIEND OF ROLANDO KADRIC MONTEZ, A MINOR CHILD; from Cameron County; 13th district (13-
02-00577-CV, 176 SW3d 618, 10-13-05)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice David Medina delivered the opinion of the Court.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a concurring opinion in JCW Electronics v. Garza,
in which Justice O'Neill joined.

In the Matter of H .V ., No. 06-0005 (Tex. Apr. 11, 2008)(Brister) (juvenile law, Miranda warning,
requirements for effective invocation of right to counsel, suppression of confession, exclusion of evidence)
IN THE MATTER OF H.V.; from Tarrant County; 2nd district (02-04-00029-CV, 179 S.W.3d 746, 11-17-05)
The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the
trial court. Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice O'Neill, Justice Medina, Justice
Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in
which Justice Wainwright and Justice Green joined, and in which Justice Hecht joined as to Parts I, III, and V.

Medical City Dallas, Ltd. v. Carlisle Corp., No. 06-0660 (Tex. Apr. 11, 2008)(Jefferson)
(breach of express warranty claim, entitlement to attorney's fees)
MEDICAL CITY DALLAS, LTD. v. CARLISLE CORPORATION D/B/A CARLISLE SYNTEC
SYSTEMS; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-04-00157-CV, 196 S.W.3d 855, 06-27-06)
The Court reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and reinstates the trial court's judgment.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court.
(Justice Hecht not sitting)

20281, Inc. v. Parker, No. 06-0574 (Tex. Mar. 28, 2008)(Jefferson)(Dram Shop Act, provider liability,
defense) 20801, INC. v. JOHN L. PARKER; from Harris County; 14th district (14-05-00250-CV, 194 S.W.3d
556, 04-11-06)
The Court reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court.

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 Daimler Chrysler v. Inman,
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)(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.
In this mandamus action, the court considers whether a motion for new trial filed within thirty days of
judgment, but after a preceding motion for new trial has been overruled, extends the trial court’s plenary
power under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 329b, and holds that it does not. Accordingly the court denies
relator Brookshire Grocery Company’s petition for writ of mandamus.