SUPREME COURT GRANTS MANDAMUS TO REQUIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR NEW TRIAL AFTER JURY VERDICT

law-new-trial-after-jury-verdict | motion for new trial | judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) |

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL - APPELLATE REVIEW

“Except in very limited circumstances, an order granting a
motion for new trial rendered within the period of the trial court's
plenary power is not reviewable on appeal.” Wilkins v. Methodist Health
Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559, 563 (Tex. 2005); see also In re Columbia Med.
Ctr. of Las Colinas, Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204, 208 (Tex. 2009)
(“[O]ur decisions preclude, for the most part, appellate review of
orders granting new trials.”). As the supreme court recently explained,
its “prior decisions indicate that only in two instances have new trial
orders rendered during the time a trial court has plenary power been
reviewable by an appellate court: when the trial court's order was void
and when the trial court erroneously concluded that the jury's answers
to special issues were irreconcilably in conflict.” In re Columbia Med.
Ctr., 290 S.W.3d at 209.

In re Jeffrey Cook, No. 10-0855 (Tex. Dec. 16, 2011)(per curiam opinion)
(reason for grant of new trial required, even if original trial court judge replaced)(mandamus granted).
The relator asks us to decide whether a trial court abused its discretion when it issued an
order granting a motion for new trial “based on all grounds in the motion.” While this case was pending, however, the
judge who signed the order resigned, and we remanded the case pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.2
(b). The successor trial judge then entered an order stating only that his predecessor’s ruling “should remain
unchanged.” We recently held that a successor trial court’s order reaffirming the original trial court’s grant of a motion for
new trial was “effectively an order refusing to enter judgment on the jury verdict and affects the rights of the parties no
less than did the orders of the original judge,” and we concluded that the relator in that case was “entitled to know those
reasons just as much as it would be entitled to know the reasons for the orders entered by the former trial judge.” In re
Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, 290 S.W.3d 204, 214 (Tex. 2009). Accordingly, we conditionally granted mandamus
relief, directing the successor trial court to specify the reasons it refused to enter judgment on the jury verdict and
ordered a new trial. Id. at 215. Because the successor trial court judge in this case did not state sufficient reasons for
his ruling, contrary to our holding in In re Columbia, we conditionally grant relief.
Without hearing oral argument, TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(c), we conditionally grant Jeffrey’s petition for writ of mandamus
and direct the successor trial court to specify the reasons why it refused to enter judgment on the jury verdict. See In re
Columbia, 290 S.W.3d at 215 (requiring reasons to be “clearly identified and reasonably specific”).
We are confident that the trial court will comply, and our writ will issue only if it does not.
IN RE JEFFREY COOK; from Tarrant County; 2nd district (02-10-00068-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 06-08-10)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants the
writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion
(Justice Lehrmann not sitting)
Link to Electronic Briefs in this case: 10-0855 IN RE JEFFREY COOK

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

GRANT OF NEW TRIAL AFTER THE JURY HAS SPOKEN:
"In the Interest of Justice" now insufficient to support order granting new
trial

SUPREME COURT (IN 5-4 SPLIT DECISION) ALTERS PRECEDENT REGARDING TRIAL
COURT'S DISCRETION TO GRANT NEW TRIAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE: TRIAL
JUDGES MANDAMUSSED TO FURNISH SPECIFIC EXPLANATION FOR GRANTING
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL (OR SUA SPONTE REASON FOR DOING SO)

SUPREME COURT ORDERS TRIAL COURTS TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY GRANTED NEW TRIALS
"In the Interest of Justice" WILL NO LONGER DO
In Re Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas, No. 06-0416 (Tex. Jul. 3, 2009)(Johnson) (mandamus
granted) (jury trial, reasons for trial court judge disregarding jury verdict and granting new trial
required) (mandamus granted to order trial court to elaborate on reasons for setting aside jury verdict
and granting new trial)(also see --> JNOV)
IN RE COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER OF LAS COLINAS, SUBSIDIARY, L.P. D/B/A LAS COLINAS
MEDICAL CENTER, ANTONETTE CONNER, AND ANNA MATHEW; from Dallas County;
5th district (05-06-00611-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 05-12-06 Opinion of the Dallas Court of Appeals) as
reinstated; stay order issued August 29, 2008, lifted
The Court conditionally grants in part and denies in part the petition for writ of mandamus.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice
Brister, and Justice Willett joined. [pdf]
Justice O'Neill delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Medina, and
Justice Green joined. [pdf]

AFTER MANDAMUS PETITION-ABATEMENT PING-PONG INVOLVING THREE DIFFERENT TRIAL
COURT JUDGES, SUPREMES ORDER THE LAST ONE TO SERVE UP A VALID EXPLANATION WHY
NEW TRIAL WAS GRANTED.
In Re Baylor Medical Center at Garland, No. 06-0491 (Tex. Jul 3, 2009) (mandamus granted)(Johnson)
(trial judge granted new trial and then resigned, mandamus abatement, current judge ordered to
provide reason for granting new trial)
IN RE BAYLOR MEDICAL CENTER AT GARLAND; from Dallas County;
5th district (05-05-01663-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 01-04-06 Opinion of the Dallas Court below)
as reinstated, stay order issued August 29, 2008, lifted
The Court conditionally grants in part and denies in part the petition for writ of mandamus.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice
Brister, and Justice Willett joined. [pdf]
Justice O'Neill delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Medina, and
Justice Green joined. [pdf]
View Electronic Briefs in Tex. 2009 No. 06-0491 IN RE BAYLOR MED. CTR. AT GARLAND

ANOTHER NEW TRIAL - ANOTHER MANDAMUS TO GET THE TRIAL COURT TO JUSTIFY THE ACT
In Re E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Co., No. 08-0625 (Tex. Jul. 3, 2009)(Johnson)
(mandamus granted: trial court's grant of new trial following jury verdict requires explanation; trial court
ordered to provide specific reason why new trial was granted despite jury verdict for the defense)
IN RE E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; from Jefferson County;
9th district (09-08-00318-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07-24-08 Opinion of the Ninth Court of Appeals)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court
conditionally grants in part and denies in part the petition for writ of mandamus.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice
Brister, and Justice Willett joined. [pdf - 3 pages]
Justice O'Neill delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Medina, and
Justice Green joined. [pdf - 1 page]

Also see:
Texas Causes of Action and Defenses | 2011 Texas Supreme Court Opinions | 2011 Tex Sup Ct Per Curiams | Texas
Caselaw Topics Pages | Texas Opinions H omepage |