Hallco Texas v. McMullen County, No. 02-1176 (Tex. Dec. 29, 2006)(O’Neill) [government entity law, takings claim, res judicata] HALLCO TEXAS, INC. v. MCMULLEN COUNTY; from McMullen County; 4th district (04 02 00164 CV, 94 SW3d 735, 11 20 02) The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment. Justice O'Neill delivered the opinion of the Court as to Parts I, II, III.B, and V, joined by Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, and Justice Johnson, and an opinion as to Part III.A and IV, joined by Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Brister, and Justice Johnson
Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Medina and Justice Willett Hallco is entitled to a decision on the merits of its claims that the County’s ordinance effected a compensable taking of its property. Because the Court disagrees, I respectfully dissent. (Justice Green not sitting)
Bed, Bath and Beyond v. Urista (Tex. Dec. 29, 2006)(Green) [personal injury law, PI, workplace injury, jury instruction, charge error, harmless error] 04 0332 BED, BATH & BEYOND, INC. v. RAFAEL URISTA; from Harris County; 1st district (01 02 00150 CV, 132 SW3d 517, 02 19 04) The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court. Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justice Hecht, Justice O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett
In this case we decide whether an unavoidable accident instruction given to the jury caused reversible error and requires a new trial. We conclude that because the record does not support a finding that the trial court’s submission of the instruction probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment, Tex. R. App. P. 61.1(a), any error in including the instruction in the jury charge was harmless. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and remand the case to that court for consideration of the remaining issues.
Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consolidated ISD v. Texas Political Subdivision, No. 05-0340 (Tex. Dec. 29, 2006)(O’Neill) http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2006/dec/050340.htm [sovereign immunity waived by recent enactment of legislature] BEN BOLT-PALITO BLANCO CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. TEXAS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS PROPERTY/CASUALTY JOINT SELF-INSURANCE FUND; from Jim Wells County; 4th district (04 04 00658 CV, 163 SW3d 172, 03 09 05)
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, joined by Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice Medina, and Justice Johnson Because Section 271.152 of the Local Government Code waives the Fund’’s immunity from Ben Bolt’’s claim arising out of the insurance agreement between the parties, we reverse the court of appeals’’ judgment and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.
Tony Gullo Motors I v. Chapa, No. 04-0961 (Tex. Dec. 22, 2006)(Brister) [consurmer law, auto purchase, DTPA, election of remedies, constitutionality of exemplary damages, damages cap] http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/122206.asp 04-0961 TONY GULLO MOTORS I, L.P. AND BRIEN GARCIA v. NURY CHAPA; from Montgomery County; 9th district (09 03 00568 CV, ___ SW3d ___, 08 26 04) 2 petitions The Court remands to the court of appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice Green, and Justice Willett Justice Johnson delivered a concurring opinion http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2006/dec/040961c.htm Justice O'Neill delivered a dissenting opinion http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2006/dec/040961d.htm
Meyer v. WMCI-GP, No. 04-0252 (Tex. Dec. 22, 2006)(Hecht) [bizlaw, arbitration law, compel arbitration, nonparty, right of first refusal, assignment, equitable estoppel] ALTON J. MEYER, MEYER ACQUISITION CORP., AND FORD MOTOR COMPANY v. WMCO-GP, LLC AND BULLOCK MOTOR COMPANY; from Angelina County; 9th district (09 03 00255 CV, 126 SW3d 313, 01 15 04) 2 petitions The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court. Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice Medina, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett (“The trial court should have granted Meyer’s and Ford’s motions to compel arbitration.”) Justice O'Neill delivered a dissenting opinion http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2006/dec/040252d.htm
State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Nickerson, No. 04-0427 (Tex. Dec. 22, 2006)(Jefferson) [insurance law, UIM, uninsured motorist policy, coveragte, attorneys' fees] 04-0427 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. TERESA NICKERSON; from Lamar County; 6th district (06 03 00036 CV, 130 SW3d 487, 03 18 04) The Court reverses and renders in part the court of appeals' judgment and affirms in part the court of appeals' judgment. Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court (Justice O'Neill not sitting)
State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Norris., No 04-0514 (Tex. Dec. 22, 2006)(Jefferson) [Personal injury law, auto, insurance law, underinsured motorist insurance, UIM coverage, policy limits, prejudgment interest, calculation, settlement credit, attorney fees] 04-0514 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. JIMMIE R. NORRIS; from Limestone County; 10th district (10 01 00370 CV, ___ SW3d ___, 04 14 04) The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment in part and remands in part. Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court (Justice O'Neill not sitting)
Brainard v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., No. 04-0537 (Tex. Dec. 22, 2006)(Jefferson) [Personal injury law, auto, underinsured motorist coverage, UIM insurance policy, prejudgment interest, attorneys fees, presentment of claim] 04-0537 LILITH BRAINARD, ET AL. v. TRINITY UNIVERSAL INSURANCE CO.; from Gray County; 7th district (07 03 00170 CV, 153 SW3d 508, 03 01 04) The Court reverses in part and affirms in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court. Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court (Justice O'Neill and Justice Johnson not sitting)
In Re Ford Motor Co., No. 05-0696 (Tex. Dec. 22, 2006)(per curiam) [discovery, confidentiality, protective order, mandamus remedy] 05-0696 IN RE FORD MOTOR COMPANY; from Nueces County; 13th district (13 05 00521 CV, ___ SW3d ___, 08 24 05) as supplemented stay order issued August 30, 2005, lifted stay order issued September 14, 2005, lifted motion to intervene granted 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
Via Net v. TIG Ins. Co., No. 05-0785 (Tex. Dec. 22, 2006)(per curiam) VIA NET, U.S. DELIVERY SYSTEMS, HOUSTON, U.S. DELIVERY SYSTEMS, INC. AND CORPORATE EXPRESS, INC. v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. AND SAFETY LIGHTS CO.; from Harris County; 1st district (01 04 00102 CV, 178 SW3d 10, 05 19 05) Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment. Per Curiam Opinion
Hernandez v. Nat’l Restoration Tech., No. 06-0454 (Tex. Dec. 22, 2006)(per curiam) [appellate timeline, timeliness of notice of appeal, NoA, extenstion by holiday] 06-0454 TONY HERNANDEZ AND GARY GIBSON v. NATIONAL RESTORATION TECHNOLOGIES, L.L.C., TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY AND TRAVELERS LLOYDS OF TEXAS INSURANCE COMPANY; from Harris County; 14th district (14 06 00015 CV, ___ SW3d ___, 03 30 06) Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court. Per Curiam Opinion
December 15 2006
Land Rover v. Hinojosa, No. 04-0794 (Tex. Dec. 15, 2006)(per curiam) [guarding ad litem GAL for injurded child, reasonable fees, compensation] LAND ROVER U. K., LTD., LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, INC., FORD MOTOR COMPANY, AND GUNN INFINITY, INC., D/B/A GUNN RANGE ROVER v. JUAN J. HINOJOSA; from Hidalgo County; 13th district (13 03 00476 CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07 22 04) Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court. Per Curiam Opinion (“We conclude that $100,000 is not a reasonable fee for the services Hinojosa provided as guardian ad litem. Accordingly, under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, we grant Land Rover’s petition for review, and, without hearing oral argument, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and remand this cause to the trial court to reconsider the amount of the guardian ad litem fee that was taxed against Land Rover.”)(“absent exceptional circumstances not present here, a court should not enhance the fee calculated by multiplying necessary number of hours expended by a reasonable hourly rate.”)
In Re CPS No. 04-1043 (Tex. Dec. 15, 2006)(Wainwright) [family law, termination of parental rights, appeal, mandamus, dismissal] http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2006/sep/041043.htm 04-1043 IN RE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES; from Travis County; 3rd district (03-04-00464- CV, 03-04-00466-CV, 150 SW3d 819, 10-21-04) motion for rehearing denied. The Court withdraws its opinion issued September 22, 2006, and issues a substituted opinion. 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 Wainwright delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice Brister, Justice Medina, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett (“we conclude that the court of appeals erred in granting Ludwig’s and Higdon’s petitions for writ of mandamus. We conditionally grant the Department’s petition for writ of mandamus because Higdon and Ludwig had an adequate remedy by appeal. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c) and without hearing oral argument, we direct the court of appeals to vacate its order to the trial court directing the trial court to dismiss the case. The writ will issue only if the court of appeals does not comply.”)
Long Trusts v. Griffin, No. 04-0825 (Tex. Dec. 8, 2006)(per curiam) [litigation expense agreement, statute of fraud, SoF] THE LONG TRUSTS v. ROBERT M. GRIFFIN, ROBERT M. GRIFFIN, JR., MARVIN AND MARIE OGILVIE AND CHARLES W. CONRAD; from Gregg County; 6th district (06 02 00185 CV, 144 SW3d 99, 07 07 04) 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 in part and remands the case to the trial court. Per Curiam Opinion
December 1, 2006
Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Taylor, No. 03-0408 (Tex. Dec. 1, 2006)(Hecht) [premises liability, slip and fall case] BROOKSHIRE GROCERY COMPANY, D/B/A BROOKSHIRE FOOD STORES v. MARY FRANCIS TAYLOR; from Lamar County; 6th district (06 02 00122 CV, 102 SW3d 816, 04 01 03) Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment. Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett Justice Johnson delivered a concurring opinion Justice O'Neill delivered a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Medina
Bulanek v. Westtes 66, No. 04-0011 (Tex. Dec. 1, 2006)(per curiam) [condemnation case] DONNIE BULANEK, JACKO GARRETT, AND NANCY GARRETT v. WESTTEX 66 PIPELINE COMPANY; from Brazoria County; 1st district (01 02 00548 CV, ___ SW3d ___, 12 18 03) Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court modifies the court of appeals' judgment, affirms the judgment as modified and remands the case to the trial court. Per Curiam Opinion
Barker v. Eckman, 04-0194 (Tex. Dec. 1, 2006)(Johnson) breach of bailment agreement, attorney's fees, accrual date] EMZY T. BARKER, III AND AVA BARKER D/B/A BRUSHY CREEK BRAHMAN CENTER AND BRUSHY CREEK CUSTOM SIRES v. WALTER W. ECKMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NOMINEE AND TRUSTEE, ECKMAN, INC., AND LARRY ECKMAN; from Harris County; 1st district (01 01 00079 CV, ___ SW3d ___, 01 22 04) 2 petitions The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court. Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court
Lexington Ins. Co. v. Strayhorn, No. 04-0429 (Tex. Dec. 1, 2006)(Brister) [insurance, premium taxes] LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, LANDMARK INSURANCE COMPANY, AND AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY LINES INSURANCE COMPANY v. CAROLE KEETON STRAYHORN, COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND GREG ABBOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS; from Travis County; 3rd district (03 03 00169 CV, 128 SW3d 772, 02 20 04) The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court. Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court (Chief Justice Jefferson not sitting)
Tran v. Macha, No. 04-1107 (Tex. Dec. 1, 2005)(per curiam) [title defect, easement, mutual mistake] MINH THU TRAN, NORMAN L. ROSER AND WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA v. WILLIAM MACHA AND NITA MACHA; from Harris County; 1st district (01 03 00126 CV, 176 SW3d 128, 10 28 04) Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment. Per Curiam Opinion
TDPS v. Alford, No. 05-0164 (Tex. Dec. 1, 2006)(per curiam) [drivers' licenses suspension, commercial TDL] TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY v. GYLES ROBERT ALFORD; from Brazos County; 10th district (10 03 00035 CV, ___ SW3d ___, 11 10 04) Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment. Per Curiam Opinion
City of Dallas v. Thompson, No. 05-0787 (Tex. Dec. 1, 2006)(per curiam) [premises liability] CITY OF DALLAS v. MARGARET THOMPSON; from Dallas County; 5th district (05 04 01174 CV, 167 SW3d 571, 06 22 05) 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 affirms the trial court's judgment. Per Curiam Opinion
Chisholm v. Chisholm, No. 05-0996 (Tex. Dec. 1, 2006)(per curiam) QI WU CHISHOLM v. GARY BRYCE CHISHOLM; from Bexar County; 4th district (04 04 00124 CV, ___ SW3d ___, 08 24 05) Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court. Per Curiam Opinion
In re HRM, No. 06-0270 (Tex. Dec. 1, 2006)(per curiam) IN THE INTEREST OF H.R.M.; from Brazoria County; 14th district (14 05 00281 CV, ___ SW3d ___, 02 14 06) Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court. Per Curiam Opinion
In re RR and SJS, No. 06-0460 (Tex. Dec. 1, 2006)(per curiam) [termination of parental rights] IN THE INTEREST OF R.R. AND S.J.S., CHILDREN; from Dallas County; 5th district (05 05 00918 CV, 189 SW3d 915, 04 25 06) Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court. Per Curiam Opinion
City of Waco v. Abbott, No. 06-0545 (Tex. Dec. 1, 2006)(per curiam) [Open Records Act, arrest warrent affidavit, confidentiality] CITY OF WACO, TEXAS v. GREG ABBOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS; from Travis County; 7th district (07 05 00067 CV, ___ SW3d ___, 05 31 06) joint motion to dismiss the appeal due to mootness and settlement, and to reverse and vacate the court of appeal's judgment and opinion, granted in part Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 56.2, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument or considering the merits, the Court vacates the court of appeal's judgment and dismisses the case as moot. Per Curiam Opinion (Justice Willett not sitting)