Texas Supreme Court Opinions (Tex. 2011) | Willett, Don R., Justice

2009 Opinions by Justice Willett including Dissents and Concurrences

Flood gate arm pointing toward oncoming traffic that impaled driver's car and severely
injured passenger not a "special defect" and thus not actionable under the TTCA:
Denton County v. Beynon, No. 08-0016 (Tex. May 1, 2009)(Willett) (Texas Tort Claims Act TTCA
governmental immunity waiver, special defect hazardous road condition s)
DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS v. DIANNE BEYNON AND ROGER BEYNON, INDIVIDUALLY, ET AL.; from
Denton County; 2nd district (02-07-00066-CV, 242 SW3d 169, 11-29-07)
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 dismisses the case.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister,
Justice Green, and Justice Johnson joined.
Justice O'Neill delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Jefferson and Justice Medina joined.

In Interest of JOA, No. 08-0379 (Tex. May 1, 2009)(Medina)(termination of parental rights appeal,
constitutionality of statement of points requirement for appeal)
IN THE INTEREST OF J.O.A., T.J.A.M., T.J.M., AND C.T.M., CHILDREN; from Collingsworth County; 7th
district (07-07-00042-CV, 262 SW3d 7, 02-25-08)
The Court modifies the court of appeals' judgment, affirms the judgment as modified, and remands the
case to the trial court.
Justice Medina delivered the opinion of the Court.
Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion.

Tanner v. Nationwide Mutual Fi re Ins. Co., No. 07-0760 (Tex. Apr. 21, 2009)(Willett)
(insurance coverage dispute, intentional injury exclusion)
GREG TANNER AND MARIBEL TANNER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIENDS OF K.T. AND R.T.,
MINOR CHILDREN v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; from Caldwell County; 11th
district (11-05-00371-CV, 232 SW3d 330, 08-09-07)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice
O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, Justice Medina, Justice Green, and Justice Johnson joined.
Justice Brister delivered a dissenting opinion

Pine Oak Builders, Inc. v. Great American Lloyds Ins. Co., No. 06-0867 (Tex. 2009)(Willett)
(insurance coverage dispute, duty to defend not triggered by allegations in suit)
PINE OAK BUILDERS, INC. v. GREAT AMERICAN LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY; from Harris County;
14th district (14-05-00487-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07-06-06) 2 petitions
The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the
trial court.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court.

2008 Texas Supreme Court Opinions by Justice Willett, Dissents and
Concurrences

FISCAL YEAR PRODUCTIVITY IN REVIEW: Over the course of the fiscal year, which ended
Aug. 31, 2008, Justice Willett turned in 21 signed opinions, which break down as follows: 8
majority opinions, 7 concurring opinions, 4 dissents, 2 opinions concurring and dissenting in part.
No per curiam opinions were reported for Willett.

In re Caballero, No. 07-0484 (Tex. Dec. 19, 2008)(Green)(attorney discipline, BODA discretion,
disbarment or suspension when attorney on probation for criminal conduct)
IN THE MATTER OF ROLANDO CABALLERO
The Court affirms the judgment of disbarment.
Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice
O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, and Justice Johnson joined.
Justice Willett delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Medina joined.

In Re Global Santa Fe Corp., No. 07-0040 (Tex. Dec. 5, 2008) (Willett) (silica litigation, Jones Act
preemption issues)
IN RE GLOBALSANTAFE CORPORATION; from Harris County; 14th district (14-06-00625-CV, ___ SW3d
___, 12-19-06)
The Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court.

Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. v. Garza Energy Trust, No. 05-0466 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Hecht)
(oil and gas, trespass, rule of capture)
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.

Forest Oil Corp v. McAllen, No. 06-0178 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Willett)(arbitration, commercial contact,
fraudulent inducement claim barred by contractual waiver of reliance language)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice O'Neill, Justice Wainwright,
Justice Brister, Justice Green, and Justice Johnson joined.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Medina joined.

Don's Building Supply, Inc. v. Onebeacon Ins. Co., No. 07-0639 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Willett)
(certified questions)(insurance coverage dispute, duty to defend, eight corners rule, belated discovery of
residential construction defect)
DON'S BUILDING SUPPLY, INC. v. ONEBEACON INSURANCE COMPANY, AS ASSIGNEE OF POTOMAC
INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS
The Court answers the questions certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court.

In Interest of MN, a Child, No. 07-0698 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Johnson)
(termination of parental rights, appellate procedure, extension to file statement of points for appeal)
IN THE INTEREST OF M.N., A CHILD; from Taylor County; 11th district
(11-06-00228-CV, 230 SW3d 248, 05-10-07)
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 that
court.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice
O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice Medina, and Justice Green joined.
Justice Willett delivered a dissenting opinion in In Interest of MN (Tex. 2008).

Frymire Engineering Co. v. Jomar International, No. 06-0755 (Tex. June 13, 2008)(Willett)
(equitable subrogation standing, construction law, contractors, indemnity)
FRYMIRE ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. BY AND THROUGH REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, LIBERTY
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. JOMAR INTERNATIONAL, LTD. AND MIXER S.R.L.; from Dallas
County; 5th district (05-04-01717-CV, 194 SW3d 713, 05-30-06)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
Justice Don R. Willett delivered the opinion of the Court.

FKM Partnership, Ltd. v. B oard of Regents of Univ. of Houston System, No. 05-0661 (Tex. Jun 6, 2008)
(Phil Johnson) (eminent domain, condemnation, implications of reduction of amount of land to be taken on
land owner's recovery of fees, partial nonsuit)
FKM PARTNERSHIP, LTD., A TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON SYSTEM; from Harris County; 14th district (14-03-00392-CV, 178 S.W.3d 1,
04-14-05) 2 petitions
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice
O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice Medina, and Justice Green joined.
Justice Willett delivered an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

First American Title Ins. Co. v. Susan Combs, No. 05-0541 (Tex. May 16, 2008)(Majority Opinion by
Don Willett) (regulation of the insurance business, taxation of out-of-state insurers, retaliatory tax)
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY AND OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY v. SUSAN COMBS, COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND
GREGG ABBOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS; from Travis County; 3rd district (03-04-00342-CV,
169 S.W.3d 298, 06-03-05)
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
Green, and Justice Johnson joined.
Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, and Justice
Medina joined.

Lewis, MD v. Funderburk, No.. 06-0518 (Tex. Apr. 11, 2008) (Brister) (Med-Mal , interlocutory appeal)
RORY LEWIS, M.D. v. DEWAYNE FUNDERBURK, AS NEXT FRIEND OF WHITNEY FUNDERBURK; from
Limestone County; 10th district (10-05-00197-CV, 191 S.W.3d 756, 04-05-06)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice
Wainwright, Justice Medina, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice O'Neill delivered a concurring opinion.
Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion.

In Re Bazan, No. 06-0952 (Tex. Mar. 28, 2008)(Medina)(mandamus)
(removal of local official based on criminal conviction, ethics in government)
IN RE EDUARDO "WALO" GRACIA BAZAN;
from Hidalgo County; 13th district (13-06 00616-CR, ___ S.W.3d ___, 11-01-06)
stay order issued November 30, 2006, lifted
The Court denies the petition for writ of mandamus.
Justice Medina delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice
O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice Green, and Justice Johnson joined.
Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion in In Re Bazan, No. 06-0952 (Tex. Mar. 28, 2008)

PR Investments and Special Retailers, Inc. v. Texas, No. 04-0431 (Tex. Feb. 15, 2008)(Justice
Willett) (condemnation, construction law, change in plans for condemned property, jurisdiction of trial court,
sanctions)
PR INVESTMENTS AND SPECIALTY RETAILERS, INC. v. THE STATE OF TEXAS; from Harris County; 14th
district (14-00-00091-CV, 180 S.W.3d 654, 10/13/05)
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
Justice Don R. Willett delivered the opinion of the Court.

National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg, PA v. Crocker, No. 06-0868 (Tex. Feb. 15, 2008)(Justice
Willett) (insurance coverage, additional insured, notification)
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURG, PA v. BEATRICE CROCKER; 5th district
The Court answers the questions certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court.

AIC Management v. Crews, No. 05-0270 (Tex. Jan 25, 2008)(O’Neill) (eminent domain, condemnation, real
estate law, sufficiency of legal description, UDJA, jurisdiction of Harris County Civil Courts at Law)
AIC MANAGEMENT v. RHONDA S. CREWS, CURTIS CALDWELL CREWS, ANNETTE CREWS, DENISE
CLAUDEN CREWS, AND CLAUDE CREWS, JR., THE HEIRS OF EMMA CREWS, VALDA CREWS, AND
EVA FAY GROSS, AND ALDINE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; from Harris County; 1st district
(01-03 01178-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 02-03-2005) (Opinion of the First Court of Appeals - by Higley)
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.
Justice Willett filed a concurring opinion.

City of Rockwall, Texas v. Hughes, No. 05-0126 (Tex. Jan 25, 2008) (Johnson) (annexation, arbitration
construction of statutory provision governing arbitration of municipal annexation disputes)
THE CITY OF ROCKWALL, TEXAS v. VESTER T. HUGHES, AS SOLE INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE
ESTATE OF W. W. CARUTH, DECEASED; from Rockwall County; 5th district (05-04-01562-CV, 153 S.W.
3d 709, 01-20-2005)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Wainwright,
Justice Medina, and Justice Green joined.
Justice Willett filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Hecht, Justice O'Neill, and Justice Brister
joined.

Paj, Inc. v. The Hanover Ins. Co., No. 05-0849 (Tex. Jan. 11, 2008)(Opinion by Justice O'Neill)
(insurance law, effect of failure to comply with notice of claim requirements, prejudice)
PAJ, INC. D/B/A PRIME ART & JEWEL v. THE HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY; from Dallas County; 5th
district (05-04-01047-CV, 170 S.W.3d 258, 08/26/05)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment, renders judgment in part, and remands the case to the
trial court in part.
Justice O'Neill delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Brister, Justice
Medina, and Justice Green joined.
Justice Willett delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, and Justice
Johnson joined.

AIG Aviation v. Holt Helicopters, Inc. No. 06-0484 (Tex. Jan. 11, 2008) (Dissenting opinion on reh'g by
Justice Willett) (construction of aviation insurance contract)
AIG AVIATION (TEXAS), INC. AND NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH,
PENNSYLVANIA v. HOLT HELICOPTERS, INC.; from Uvalde County; 4th district (04-05-00291-CV, 198 S.
W.3d 276, 04/26/06)
Dissenting opinion by Justice Willett

TEXAS SUPREME COURT OPINIONS BY
JUSTICE DON R. WILLETT

TEX.APP. | TEXAS CASE LAW

law-ADR-family-law
law-ADR
law-DJA-declaratory-judgment
law-DSA
law-DWOJ-dismissal-for-want-of-jurisdiction
law-DWOP-dismissal
law-FAA -arbitration-agreement
law-HCLC
law-IIED-intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress
law-ILA
law-JNOV
law-PI-auto-accidents-negligence
law-Rule-11-TRCP-11
law-SJ-review-on-appeal
law-TTCA
law-UFTA
law-WBA (Whistleblower Act)
law-Wrongful-Death-Act
law-abstract-questions-of-law
law-account stated
law-accrual-of-cause-of-action
law-admissible-inadmissible-evidence
law-admissions
law admission of expert witness testimony
law-adverse-possession
law-affidavit
law-advisory opinion
law-age-discrimination
law-animals
law-annexation
law-arbitration
law-arbitration mandamus
law-arbitration-nonsignatories
law-asbesto s litigation
law-attorney-client-disputes
law-attorney-discipline
law-attorneys-fees
law-bona-fide-purchaser
law-breach-of-contract
law-breach-of-contract-materiality
law-breach-of-fiduciary-duty
law-breach-of-settlement-agreement
law-breach-of-warranty
law-capacity
law-certified questions
law-challenging arbitration
law-child-support
law-choice-of-law
law-citation
law-civil-commitment
law-civil-conspiracy
law-class-actions
law-condemnation
law-condominium law
law-construction
law-consumer-law
law-contempt
law-contract
law contract construction interpretation
law-contract formation
law-contract of adhesion
law covenant not to compete
law-conversion
law-credit-card-debt-suit
law-declaratory-judgment
law-deed
law-deed-restrictions-restrictive-covenants
law-deemed-admissions
law-defamation-credit
law-defamation-libel-slander
law-default-judgment
law-discovery-disputes
law-discovery-presuit
law-discovery-rule
law-divorce-property-division
law-documents-outside-the-record
law-domestication-enforcement-of-foreign-judgment
law-drivers-license-suspension-DUI-DWI
law due process
law-duress-undue-influence
law duty to defend
law-easement
law eight corners rule
law-election-law
law-elements-of-contract
law-employment-at-will
law employment arbitration
law-employment
law equitable subrogation
law-estoppel
law-execution-enforcement-of-judgment
law-exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies
law expert witness testimony admission
law exclusive remedy
law execution enforcement of judgment
law-expunction
law failure to disclose witness evidence
law fair notice pleading
law-family-law-international
law-family-law
law-federal-preemption
law findings of fact (FOF)
law-fire-insurance-liability
law-food-restaurant-hospitality
law-foreclosure
law-forfeiture
law-foreign law
law-forum-selection
law-fracturing-of-claims
law-fraudulent-concealment-tolling
law-fraudulent inducement
law-frivolous appeal sanctions
law-frivolous suit sanctions
law-governmental-entities-local
law-governmental-entities-state-agencies
law-governmental-immunity
law-gross-negligence
law harmful error analysis
law-hearsay-objection
law-home-equity-loans
law-home-owner
law-homestead
law-indemnity-indemnify-indemnification
law-individual-capacity
law-ineffective-assistance-of-counsel
law-informed-consent
law-insurance-business-regulation
law-insurance-coverage-disputes
law-insurance-duty-to-defend-indemnify
law-insurance-life
law-intervention
law judgment must conform with pleadings
law-judicial-admission
law-judicial-notice
law-judicial-notice-of-foreign-law
l aw-jury-error
law-jury-selection
law-juveniles
law-leases
law-lien
law-limitations
law-malpractice-legal
law-malpractice-medical
law-meeting-of-the-minds
law-money-had-and-received
law-mootness-doctrine
law more relief than requested
law-motion-for-continuance
law-motion-for-new-trial
law-motion for rehearing
law-motion-to-reinstate
law-motion-to-show-authority
law multiple contract documents
law-negligence
law-negligent-entrustment
law-nonsuit
law notice of insurance claim
law-nuisance
law-official-capacity
law-official-immunity-defense
law-oil-and-gas-and-minerals
law oral agreements contract
law-parental-rights
law-parol-evidence-rule
law-partition-of-land
law-partnership disputes
law-permanent-injunction
law plea to the jurisdiction - considering evidence
law plea to the jurisdiction denied
law-pleadings-not-evidence
law-plenary-power
law-post-divorce-actions
law-preemption-federal
law prejudment interest
law preservation of error for appeal
law-premises-liability
law-presuit discovery
law-prisoner-death
law-prisoner-suits
law-pro-se-suits
law-probate
law-product-liability
law-promissory-note
law-property-taxes
law-public-employment
law-public-policy grounds
law punitive damages
law-ratification
law-recusal
law reim b ursement claim in divorce property division
law-reinstatement
law-religion
law-rescission
law res ipsa loquitur
law-res-judicata-doctrine
law-residential-construction
law-restricted-appeal
law-retaliation
law-retroactive-application
law-ripeness-doctrine
law-sales-tax
law-sanctions
law-sovereign-immunity
law-special-appearance
law-special exception
law-specific-performance
law spoliation presumption
law-standing-doctrine
law-statutory-construction
law stipulation
law subject matter jurisdiction
law summary judgment standards
law-takings-claim-inverse-condemnation
law-temporary-orders-TRO
law-termination-of-parental-rights
law-test-for-abuse-of-discretion
law-tortious-interference
law-trade-secret
law-trade-secrets
law-turnover-order
law-unauthorized-practice-of-law-UPLC
law-unconscionable contract
law-unfair-competition
law-unjust-enrichment
law-unliquidated-damages
law usury
law-venue
law-vex-lit
law-void contract void order
law-voluntary-underemployment
law-waiver
law-water
law-workers-comp
law-workplace-injury
plenary-power

Willett Opinions

LAST UPDATED: 6/1        7/11

LTTS Charter School, Inc. v. C2 Construction Inc., No. 09-0794 (Tex. Jun. 17, 2011)(Willett)(charter school
a governmental unit for tort claims purposes)(interlocutory appeal of immunity ruling permitted).
      Since 1995, open-enrollment charter schools have been a part of the Texas public-school system. These nontraditional
public schools, created and governed by Chapter 12 of the Education Code, receive government funding and comply with
the state’s testing and accountability system, but they operate with greater flexibility than traditional public schools, in hopes
of spurring innovation and improving student achievement.
      This interlocutory appeal poses a narrow issue: Is an open-enrollment charter school a “governmental unit” as
defined in Section 101.001(3)(D) of the Tort Claims Act1 and thus able to take an interlocutory appeal from a trial court’
s denial of its plea to the jurisdiction? We answer yes. An open-enrollment charter school qualifies under the Tort Claims
Act as an “institution, agency, or organ of government” deriving its status and authority from legislative enactments.3
Accordingly, it may bring an interlocutory appeal. We reverse the court of appeals’ judgment dismissing the interlocutory
appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to that court to reach the merits of the school’s immunity claim.
Conclusion. Open-enrollment charter schools are governmental units for Tort Claims Act purposes because: (1) The Act
defines “governmental unit” broadly to include “any other institution, agency, or organ of government” derived from state law;
70 (2) the Education Code defines open-enrollment charter schools as “part of the public school system,”71 which are
“created in accordance with the laws of this state,”72 subject to “state laws and rules governing public schools,”73 and,
together with traditional public schools, “hav[ing] the primary responsibility for implementing the state’s system of public
education;”74 and (3) the Legislature considers open-enrollment charter schools to be “governmental entit[ies]”75 under a
host of other laws outside the Education Code.
      Accordingly, because Universal Academy is a “governmental unit” under the Tort Claims Act, the court of appeals had
jurisdiction to hear Universal Academy’s interlocutory appeal under Section 51.014(a)(8).76 Our holding does not resolve
the underlying issue of whether Universal Academy enjoys immunity from C2’s contract claim. We reverse the court of
appeals’ judgment dismissing the appeal and remand to that court for further proceedings.
LTTS CHARTER SCHOOL, INC. D/B/A UNIVERSAL ACADEMY v. C2 CONSTRUCTION, INC.; from Dallas County; 5th district
(05-07-01469-CV, 288 SW3d 31, 02-02-09)        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 Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice Green, Justice
Johnson, and Justice Lehrmann joined. [pdf]
Justice Guzman delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Jefferson and Justice Medina joined.
[pdf]
      A party’s ability to take an interlocutory appeal is a limited exception to the general rule that only final orders are
appealable. As applicable here, the contours of that exception are found in sections 51.014(a)(8) and 101.001(3) of the Civil
Practice and Remedies Code. Despite these limits, the Court embarks on a perilous expedition through the Education
Code in an attempt to locate some indicia that the Legislature intended to allow privately run, open-enrollment charter
schools to take this circumscribed form of appeal. In so doing, the Court ventures beyond the narrow procedural question
presented in this case: whether a privately run, open-enrollment charter school is a “governmental unit” as defined by
section 101.001(3) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. If it is, then an interlocutory appeal is proper from denial of a
plea to the jurisdiction by the school, as authorized by section 51.014(a)(8). But, because it is not, I would affirm the court of
appeals. Privately run, open-enrollment charter schools do not meet the Legislature’s definition as set out in section
101.001(3), and therefore no interlocutory appeal may be taken from an order granting or denying a plea to the jurisdiction
by such a school.
      Conclusion. Because (1) the plain meaning of Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 101.001(3) does not cover a
privately run, open-enrollment charter school like LTTS, and (2) the Court has effectively resolved the underlying substance
of whether such schools enjoy immunity from suit, rather than the procedural issue properly before us, I respectfully
dissent, and would affirm the court of appeals’ holding that it lacked jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal.
See E-briefs in 09-0794 LTTS CHARTER SCHOOL, INC. v. C2 CONSTRUCTION, INC.

In re Reece, No. 09-0520 (Tex. May 27, 2011)(Guzman)
It is well-rooted in our jurisprudence that contempt is a broad and inherent power of a court. But, we have also recognized
that despite the breadth and necessity of that power, it is a power that must be exercised with caution. Today, we decide as
a matter of first impression whether a trial court may hold a litigant in contempt for perjury committed during a deposition.
We are further presented with a question arising from the bifurcated nature of the Texas judiciary and our limited habeas
jurisdiction: whether we should exercise our mandamus jurisdiction to provide a forum for a civil litigant who is deprived of
liberty pursuant to a court’s contempt order, and the Court of Criminal Appeals has declined to exercise its habeas
jurisdiction.
     In the underlying civil case, the relator was held in contempt and confined for perjuring himself during a deposition. The
relator challenged his confinement by seeking a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Criminal Appeals, but that court
declined to exercise its jurisdiction citing, among other things, the civil nature of the case. The Court of Criminal Appeals
directed the relator to pursue his remedies in this Court. Because we lack habeas jurisdiction in this case, the relator
pursued relief by filing the instant petition for writ of mandamus to challenge his confinement.
     We conclude the trial court abused its discretion by holding the relator in contempt for perjury occurring during a
deposition, because such perjury did not obstruct the operation of the court. Further, because the underlying suit is civil in
nature, and the Court of Criminal Appeals declined to grant the relator leave to file a habeas petition in that court, we hold
the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal and therefore mandamus is the appropriate remedy to correct the trial court’s
abuse of discretion. We conditionally grant relief.
     IN RE COY REECE; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-09-00609-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 06-11-09)
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction denied
motion to revoke bond denied
The Court conditionally grants the writ of mandamus.
Justice Guzman delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright,
Justice Medina, Justice Green, and Justice Lehrmann joined. [pdf]
Justice Johnson delivered a dissenting opinion. [pdf]
Justice Willett delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Johnson joined as to Part IV. [pdf]
Today’s case [sparks] a game of jurisdictional hot potato between us and our constitutional twin, the Court of Criminal
Appeals. Truth be told—and this particular truth has been told repeatedly—the State’s entire Rube Goldberg-designed
judicial “system” is beyond piecemeal repair; it should be scrapped and rebuilt top-to-bottom. That said, and however
labyrinthine the jurisdictional maze often is, the answer in today’s case seems straightforward: This dispute belongs with
our sister court. It arrived on our doorstep because of a simple yet pivotal misunderstanding: the Court of Criminal Appeals’
mistaken belief that we have unfettered habeas jurisdiction and are thus equally able to grant habeas relief.1 We do not,2
and the Court today is unified 9-0 on that point (though the Court does not explicitly mention our sister court’s
misinterpretation). We part ways 7-2 on whether we should make lemons out of jurisdictional lemonade by wiring around
our habeas limitation and relabeling the relief sought “mandamus.”
The mandamus remedy turns on two findings: legality and practicality.3 On both scores, I would return this case to the court
that conceded two years ago that it “does have the authority to act in this case.”4 Statute and precedent strongly suggest we
cannot hear this case, but even if we can, practical considerations advise we should not. Neither refusing nor resisting, the
Court today yanks tighter a Gordian knot that should be cut clean through. I respectfully dissent, and, for good measure,
exhort the Legislature to propose a judiciary worthy of Texas.
See Electronic Briefs in 09-0520 IN RE COY REECE

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]
Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion. [pdf]
The Court is right that today’s outcome is dictated by the Insurance Code as it is written. That being so, I wish the Court
were more inhibited to do what we have prohibited—mine extratextual clues to illuminate an already-unambiguous statute.
Text alone does not answer every question, but it answers many, including today’s, as the Court concedes. I accept a
cautious (and non-villainous) role for extrinsic aids, including certain legislative history, where a nebulous statute is
susceptible to varying interpretations,1 but our rule for unambiguous statutes is uncomplicated: “Where text is clear, text is
determinative,”2 making any foray into extratextual aids not just inadvisable but, as we have repeatedly derided it,
“inappropriate.”3
The Court nowhere states—or even suggests—the Insurance Code is ambiguous. But even assuming arguendo it is,
“thus justifying cautious use of secondary construction aids,”4 the Court beckons some strange ones, including some we
have consistently decried as patently unreliable (like failed bills in a subsequent Legislature). The Court’s detour may be
well meaning, but it is not well supported, and I regret its “disparate impact” on our interpretive precedent. I would hold to
our holdings—when the Legislature speaks plainly, the judiciary should as well. In other words, and applying a rule less
prudish than prudent, if it is not necessary to look further, it is necessary not to look further. An unembellished interpretation
of an unambiguous statute can be spare without being sparse. For these reasons, I agree with all but Part III.C of today’s
opinion.
The Court’s textual analysis is clear and incisive, and I join it unreservedly. The meaning of the Insurance Code is apparent
from its language, read in context, especially as contrasted with the Labor and Government Codes, both of which explicitly
allow disparate-impact liability. All in all, though, I wish the Court were more allegiant to our longstanding interpretive
precedent. We should treat similar cases similarly, not disparately. Given the rise of state legisprudence, we owe
interpretive clarity—and consistency—to the courts below us, the litigants before us, the citizens beside us, and the cases
beyond us.
(Justice Hecht not sitting)
See Electronic Briefs in 10-0245 PATRICK O. OJO v. FARMERS GROUP, INC.

Nueces County, Tx v. Ballesteros, No. 09-0561 (Tex. Apr. 29, 2011)(Willett dissent from denial
of PFR)
For reasons explained in my concurrence today in Roccaforte v. Jefferson County,1 I respectfully dissent
from the Court’s denial of Nueces County’s petition for review. My view in Roccaforte is that Jefferson
County effectively waived Roccaforte’s noncompliance with the mandatory post-suit notice requirements of
Local Government Code Section 89.0041 by failing to raise it “as soon as possible.” As we have stated,
“The failure of a non-jurisdictional requirement mandated by statute may result in the loss of a claim, but
that failure must be timely asserted and compliance can be waived.” In Roccaforte, Jefferson County
litigated for two-plus years before asserting defective notice, raising it only after limitations had expired. In
this case, however, Nueces County immediately objected to Ballesteros’s noncompliance in both its plea to
the jurisdiction and its motion to dismiss. Accordingly, I believe Nueces County was entitled to mandatory
dismissal under Section 89.0041(c).
NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS v. JOE GUADALUPE BALLESTEROS; from Nueces County; 13th district (13-06-
00405-CV, 286 SW3d 566, 05-14-09) as redrafted
Justice Willett dissents to the denial of the petition for review. [pdf]
See Electronic Briefs in 09-0561 NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS v. BALLESTEROS

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]
I join Parts I–III of the Court’s opinion. As for Part IV, I join the result but not the reasoning. There is a better
approach, one more allegiant to the Legislature’s words. Roccaforte’s claim should proceed, but the
reason is rooted not in his substantial compliance but rather the County’s substantial dalliance.
The Court’s understandable desire to work an eminently fair result has led it to revise the statute as
desired rather than read it as enacted. I favor a different approach to the same outcome. Roccaforte
should win not because the Court waived the Legislature’s words but because the County did.
See Electronic Briefs in 09-0326 ROCCAFORTE v. JEFFERSON COUNTY

State of Texas v. PUC, No. 08-0421 (Tex. Mar. 18, 2011)(Willett)
This complex case poses several vexing questions regarding Texas utility-deregulation laws and the Public Utility
Commission’s application of those laws. In short, numerous parties — the State of Texas, utility companies, municipal
groups, consumer groups, and others — challenge the Commission’s interpretations of various cost-recovery provisions in
Chapter 39 of the Utilities Code. As detailed below, we affirm the court of appeals’ judgment in part, reverse it in part, and
remand to the PUC for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, ET AL. v. PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS, ET AL.; from Travis County;
3rd district (03-05-00557-CV, 252 SW3d 1, 04-17-08)
3 petitions
The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment, and remands the case to the
Public Utility Commission.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in No. 08-0421 THE STATE OF TEXAS v. PUBLIC UTILITY COMM'N OF TEXAS

Reid Road MUD No. 2. v. Speedy Stop Food Stores, Ltd., No. 09-0396 (Tex. Mar. 11, 2011)(Johnson)
In this case we address two evidentiary questions. The first is whether an employee of the corporate general partner of a
limited partnership qualifies to testify about the fair market value of partnership property under either the Property Owner
Rule or Texas Rule of Evidence 701. The second is whether the condemning authority in a condemnation proceeding
adopted the damages opinion of an appraiser by presenting the appraiser’s testimony and written appraisal in the special
commissioners’ hearing.
Under the record before us, we answer the first question “No,” the second question “Yes,” and affirm the judgment of the
court of appeals.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the damages opinion LaBeff expressed in his affidavit. However, the
court erred by excluding Ambrose’s testimony and appraisal as to Speedy Stop’s damages.
We affirm the court of appeals’ judgment reversing the judgment of the trial court and remanding the case for further
proceedings.
REID ROAD MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 2 v. SPEEDY STOP FOOD STORES, LTD.; from Harris
County; 14th district (14-07-00225-CV, 282 SW3d 652, 02-03-09)
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf]
Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion, in which Justice Lehrmann joined. [pdf]
(Justice Guzman not sitting)
View Electronic Briefs 09-0396
REID ROAD MUNICIPAL UTILITY DIST. NO. 2 v. SPEEDY STOP FOOD STORES, LTD.

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

Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams (pdf), 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)
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

Serros de Gonzalez v. Guilbot, (pdf) 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.
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

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

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.

First Court of Appeals tried to outsupreme the Supremes: 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]

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]

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 Willett delivered a concurring opinion in In re ADM Investor Services, Inc.

2009 Opinions by Justice Don R. Willett
including Dissents and Concurrences

DISSENT FROM DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REVIEW
Watson v. Watkins, No. 09-0166 (Tex. Nov. 20, 2009)(Willet)
(opinion dissenting from denial of review)
(would accept case presenting question whether peace officers are entitled to official immunity for acts
performed while serving as private security guards will off-duty).
SHANE WATSON v. SHIRLEY NEWMAN AND JILL WATKINS; from Potter County;
7th district (07 08 00203 CV, ___ SW3d ___, 11 21 08)
Justice Willett, joined by Justice Hecht, delivered an opinion dissenting from the denial.

Dynegy Midstream Services, LP v. Versado Gas Processors, LLC, No. 07-0043 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2009)
(Willett)(oil gas and natural resources law)(gas sale dispute, “percentage of proceeds” contract)(New
Mexico Unfair Practices Act (NMUPA) as alternative theory to breach of contract)
DYNEGY MIDSTREAM SERVICES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND VERSADO GAS PROCESSORS, LLC
v. APACHE CORPORATION; from Harris County; 14th district (14-05-00010-CV, 214 SW3d 554, 12-07-06)
2 petitions. The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the
case to the trial court. Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court.

Intercontinental Group Partnership v. KB Home Lone Star LP., No. 07-0815 (Aug. 28, 2009)(Willett)
(prevailing party for attorney's fees purposes) (a finding of breach of contract unaccompanied by any
tangible recovery - either monetary or equitable relief - cannot confer “prevailing party” status for attorneys
fee award purposes).
INTERCONTINENTAL GROUP PARTNERSHIP v. KB HOME LONE STAR L.P.; from Hidalgo County;
13th district (13-06-00617-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 08-23-07)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice
Green, and Justice Johnson joined. [pdf]
Justice Brister delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, and Justice
Medina joined.

SUPREMES DENY MANDAMUS RELIEF IN DISPUTE OVER LEGAL CAPACITY ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT AND ISSUE NO LESS THAN FOUR (4) SEPARATE OPINIONS.
In re Morgan Stanley & Co, Inc. No. 07-0665 (Tex. Jul. 3, 2009)(Medina) (arbitration vs. litigation:
legal capacity of 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. [pdf]
(Justice O'Neill not sitting)

PROBATE: UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES CAN THE EXECUTOR SUE THE ATTORNEY OF THE
DECEASED?
Smith v. O'Donnell, No. 07-0697 (Tex. Jun. 26, 2009)(O'Neill)(PROBATE LAW: legal malpractice suit by
executor of estate against decedent's attorney, non-estate planning)
PAUL H. SMITH, ET AL. v. THOMAS O'DONNELL, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF CORWIN DENNEY;
from Bexar County; 4th district (04 -04 -00108 -CV, 234 SW3d 135, 07-25-07) 2 petitions
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
Justice O'Neill delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Brister, Justice
Medina, and Justice Johnson joined. [pdf - 11 pgs]
Justice Willett delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Wainwright joined. [pdf]
(Justice Hecht and Justice Green not sitting)
View Electronic Briefs in Smith v. O'Donnell (Tex. 2009)

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]

Prisoner got all the due process he was entitled to when money was garnished from
inmate trust account, Willett writes
Ha rrell v. State of Texas, No. 07-0806 (Tex. Jun. 5, 2009) (Willett)
(whether order to prison officials to withdraw money from inmate trust account is a civil or a criminal matter,
what due process prisoner is entitled to in garnishment process).
WALTER E. HARRELL v. THE STATE OF TEXAS; from Terry County; 7th district (07-06-00469-CR&07-06-
00470-CR, ___ SW3d ___, 08-13-07)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment dismissing the case for want of jurisdiction and renders
judgment affirming the trial court's order.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court.

Suit Seeking Removal of Trustee Not Subject to Statute of Limitations
D itta v. Conte, No. 07-1026 (Tex. Jun. 5, 2009) (Willett) (statute of limitations does not apply to trustee-
removal action, trustee may be removed at any time, unlike suit for breach of fiduciary duty, which is
governed by four-year SoL)
LOUIS M. DITTA, GUARDIAN OF THE ESTATE OF DORIS L. CONTE, AN INCAPACITATED PERSON v.
SUSAN C. CONTE AND JOSEPH P. CONTE, JR.; from Harris County; 1st district (01-05-00603-CV, ___
SW3d ___, 08-31-07)
motion to strike petitioner's appendix to brief on the merits dismissed as moot
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mere conflict of interest not sufficient to justify removal of independent executor
Kappus v. Kappus, No. 08-0136 (Tex. May 1, 2009)(Willett) (probate case, conflict of interest of
independent executor who was also beneficiary of estate not enough to warrant removal)
JOHN KAPPUS v. SANDRA L. KAPPUS; from Anderson County; 12th district (12-06-00233-CV, 242 SW3d
182, 11-30-07)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court

Flood gate arm pointing toward oncoming traffic that impaled driver's car and severely
injured passenger not a "special defect" and thus not actionable under the TTCA:
Denton County v. Beynon, No. 08-0016 (Tex. May 1, 2009)(Willett) (Texas Tort Claims Act TTCA
governmental immunity waiver, special defect hazardous road condition s)
DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS v. DIANNE BEYNON AND ROGER BEYNON, INDIVIDUALLY, ET AL.; from
Denton County; 2nd district (02-07-00066-CV, 242 SW3d 169, 11-29-07)
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 dismisses the case.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister,
Justice Green, and Justice Johnson joined.
Justice O'Neill delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Jefferson and Justice Medina joined.

In Interest of JOA, No. 08-0379 (Tex. May 1, 2009)(Medina)(termination of parental rights appeal,
constitutionality of statement of points requirement for appeal)
IN THE INTEREST OF J.O.A., T.J.A.M., T.J.M., AND C.T.M., CHILDREN; from Collingsworth County; 7th
district (07-07-00042-CV, 262 SW3d 7, 02-25-08)
The Court modifies the court of appeals' judgment, affirms the judgment as modified, and remands the
case to the trial court.
Justice Medina delivered the opinion of the Court.
Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion.

Tanner v. Nationwide Mutual Fi re Ins. Co., No. 07-0760 (Tex. Apr. 21, 2009)(Willett)
(insurance coverage dispute, intentional injury exclusion)
GREG TANNER AND MARIBEL TANNER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIENDS OF K.T. AND R.T.,
MINOR CHILDREN v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; from Caldwell County; 11th
district (11-05-00371-CV, 232 SW3d 330, 08-09-07)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice
O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, Justice Medina, Justice Green, and Justice Johnson joined.
Justice Brister delivered a dissenting opinion

Pine Oak Builders, Inc. v. Great American Lloyds Ins. Co., No. 06-0867 (Tex. 2009)(Willett)
(insurance coverage dispute, duty to defend not triggered by allegations in suit)
PINE OAK BUILDERS, INC. v. GREAT AMERICAN LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY; from Harris County;
14th district (14-05-00487-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07-06-06) 2 petitions
The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the
trial court.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court.

2008 Texas Supreme Court Opinions by Justice Willett, Dissents and
Concurrences

FISCAL YEAR PRODUCTIVITY IN REVIEW: Over the course of the fiscal year, which ended
Aug. 31, 2008, Justice Willett turned in 21 signed opinions, which break down as follows: 8
majority opinions, 7 concurring opinions, 4 dissents, 2 opinions concurring and dissenting in part.
No per curiam opinions were reported for Willett.

In re Caballero, No. 07-0484 (Tex. Dec. 19, 2008)(Green)(attorney discipline, BODA discretion,
disbarment or suspension when attorney on probation for criminal conduct)
IN THE MATTER OF ROLANDO CABALLERO
The Court affirms the judgment of disbarment.
Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice
O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, and Justice Johnson joined.
Justice Willett delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Medina joined.

In Re Global Santa Fe Corp., No. 07-0040 (Tex. Dec. 5, 2008) (Willett) (silica litigation, Jones Act
preemption issues)
IN RE GLOBALSANTAFE CORPORATION; from Harris County; 14th district (14-06-00625-CV, ___ SW3d
___, 12-19-06)
The Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court.

Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. v. Garza Energy Trust, No. 05-0466 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Hecht)
(oil and gas, trespass, rule of capture)
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.

Forest Oil Corp v. McAllen, No. 06-0178 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Willett)(arbitration, commercial contact,
fraudulent inducement claim barred by contractual waiver of reliance language)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice O'Neill, Justice Wainwright,
Justice Brister, Justice Green, and Justice Johnson joined.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Medina joined.

Don's Building Supply, Inc. v. Onebeacon Ins. Co., No. 07-0639 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Willett)
(certified questions)(insurance coverage dispute, duty to defend, eight corners rule, belated discovery of
residential construction defect)
DON'S BUILDING SUPPLY, INC. v. ONEBEACON INSURANCE COMPANY, AS ASSIGNEE OF POTOMAC
INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS
The Court answers the questions certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court.

In Interest of MN, a Child, No. 07-0698 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Johnson)
(termination of parental rights, appellate procedure, extension to file statement of points for appeal)
IN THE INTEREST OF M.N., A CHILD; from Taylor County; 11th district
(11-06-00228-CV, 230 SW3d 248, 05-10-07)
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 that
court.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice
O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice Medina, and Justice Green joined.
Justice Willett delivered a dissenting opinion in In Interest of MN (Tex. 2008).

Frymire Engineering Co. v. Jomar International, No. 06-0755 (Tex. June 13, 2008)(Willett)
(equitable subrogation standing, construction law, contractors, indemnity)
FRYMIRE ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. BY AND THROUGH REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, LIBERTY
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. JOMAR INTERNATIONAL, LTD. AND MIXER S.R.L.; from Dallas
County; 5th district (05-04-01717-CV, 194 SW3d 713, 05-30-06)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
Justice Don R. Willett delivered the opinion of the Court.

FKM Partnership, Ltd. v. B oard of Regents of Univ. of Houston System, No. 05-0661 (Tex. Jun 6, 2008)
(Phil Johnson) (eminent domain, condemnation, implications of reduction of amount of land to be taken on
land owner's recovery of fees, partial nonsuit)
FKM PARTNERSHIP, LTD., A TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON SYSTEM; from Harris County; 14th district (14-03-00392-CV, 178 S.W.3d 1,
04-14-05) 2 petitions
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice
O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice Medina, and Justice Green joined.
Justice Willett delivered an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

First American Title Ins. Co. v. Susan Combs, No. 05-0541 (Tex. May 16, 2008)(Majority Opinion by
Don Willett) (regulation of the insurance business, taxation of out-of-state insurers, retaliatory tax)
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY AND OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY v. SUSAN COMBS, COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND
GREGG ABBOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS; from Travis County; 3rd district (03-04-00342-CV,
169 S.W.3d 298, 06-03-05)
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
Green, and Justice Johnson joined.
Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, and Justice
Medina joined.

Lewis, MD v. Funderburk, No.. 06-0518 (Tex. Apr. 11, 2008) (Brister) (Med-Mal , interlocutory appeal)
RORY LEWIS, M.D. v. DEWAYNE FUNDERBURK, AS NEXT FRIEND OF WHITNEY FUNDERBURK; from
Limestone County; 10th district (10-05-00197-CV, 191 S.W.3d 756, 04-05-06)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice
Wainwright, Justice Medina, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice O'Neill delivered a concurring opinion.
Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion.

In Re Bazan, No. 06-0952 (Tex. Mar. 28, 2008)(Medina)(mandamus)
(removal of local official based on criminal conviction, ethics in government)
IN RE EDUARDO "WALO" GRACIA BAZAN;
from Hidalgo County; 13th district (13-06 00616-CR, ___ S.W.3d ___, 11-01-06)
stay order issued November 30, 2006, lifted
The Court denies the petition for writ of mandamus.
Justice Medina delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice
O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice Green, and Justice Johnson joined.
Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion in In Re Bazan, No. 06-0952 (Tex. Mar. 28, 2008)

PR Investments and Special Retailers, Inc. v. Texas, No. 04-0431 (Tex. Feb. 15, 2008)(Justice
Willett) (condemnation, construction law, change in plans for condemned property, jurisdiction of trial court,
sanctions)
PR INVESTMENTS AND SPECIALTY RETAILERS, INC. v. THE STATE OF TEXAS; from Harris County; 14th
district (14-00-00091-CV, 180 S.W.3d 654, 10/13/05)
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
Justice Don R. Willett delivered the opinion of the Court.

National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg, PA v. Crocker, No. 06-0868 (Tex. Feb. 15, 2008)(Justice
Willett) (insurance coverage, additional insured, notification)
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURG, PA v. BEATRICE CROCKER; 5th district
The Court answers the questions certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court.

AIC Management v. Crews, No. 05-0270 (Tex. Jan 25, 2008)(O’Neill) (eminent domain, condemnation, real
estate law, sufficiency of legal description, UDJA, jurisdiction of Harris County Civil Courts at Law)
AIC MANAGEMENT v. RHONDA S. CREWS, CURTIS CALDWELL CREWS, ANNETTE CREWS, DENISE
CLAUDEN CREWS, AND CLAUDE CREWS, JR., THE HEIRS OF EMMA CREWS, VALDA CREWS, AND
EVA FAY GROSS, AND ALDINE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; from Harris County; 1st district
(01-03 01178-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 02-03-2005) (Opinion of the First Court of Appeals - by Higley)
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.
Justice Willett filed a concurring opinion.

City of Rockwall, Texas v. Hughes, No. 05-0126 (Tex. Jan 25, 2008) (Johnson) (annexation, arbitration
construction of statutory provision governing arbitration of municipal annexation disputes)
THE CITY OF ROCKWALL, TEXAS v. VESTER T. HUGHES, AS SOLE INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE
ESTATE OF W. W. CARUTH, DECEASED; from Rockwall County; 5th district (05-04-01562-CV, 153 S.W.
3d 709, 01-20-2005)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Wainwright,
Justice Medina, and Justice Green joined.
Justice Willett filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Hecht, Justice O'Neill, and Justice Brister
joined.

Paj, Inc. v. The Hanover Ins. Co., No. 05-0849 (Tex. Jan. 11, 2008)(Opinion by Justice O'Neill)
(insurance law, effect of failure to comply with notice of claim requirements, prejudice)
PAJ, INC. D/B/A PRIME ART & JEWEL v. THE HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY; from Dallas County; 5th
district (05-04-01047-CV, 170 S.W.3d 258, 08/26/05)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment, renders judgment in part, and remands the case to the
trial court in part.
Justice O'Neill delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Brister, Justice
Medina, and Justice Green joined.
Justice Willett delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, and Justice
Johnson joined.

AIG Aviation v. Holt Helicopters, Inc. No. 06-0484 (Tex. Jan. 11, 2008) (Dissenting opinion on reh'g by
Justice Willett) (construction of aviation insurance contract)
AIG AVIATION (TEXAS), INC. AND NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH,
PENNSYLVANIA v. HOLT HELICOPTERS, INC.; from Uvalde County; 4th district (04-05-00291-CV, 198 S.
W.3d 276, 04/26/06)
Dissenting opinion by Justice Willett