Mack Trucks v. Tamez, No. 03-0526 (Tex. Oct. 27, 2006)(Justice Johnson) [personal injury law, accident, expert testimony, reliability, exclusion of evidence, take nothing judgment] Reata Construction Corp. v. City of Dallas, No. 02-1031 (Tex Jun. 30, 2006)(substitute opinion on rehearing by Justice Phil Johnson) [sovereign immunity, waiver of immunity by litigation conduct, waiver of immunity by suing or filing claim for affirmative relief] Concurrence by Justice Brister In Re Palm Harbor Homes, No. 04-0490 (Tex. Jun. 9, 2006)(mandamus)(Justice Johnson) In Re Palm Harbor Homes, No. 04-0490 (Tex. Jun. 9, 2006)(mandamus)(Concurrence by O'Neill) [arbitration, motion to compel arbitration, arbitration clause, binding, nonbinding, unconscionable] Marshall v. Houston Authority of the City of San Antonio, No. 04-0147 (Tex. Mar. 3, 2006)(Justice Johnson) [forcible detainer] In Re Palm Harbor Homes, No. 04-0490 (Tex. Jun. 9, 2006)(mandamus)(Justice Johnson) In Re Palm Harbor Homes, No. 04-0490 (Tex. Jun. 9, 2006)(mandamus)(Dissent by O'Neill) [arbitration, motion to compel arbitration, arbitration clause, binding, nonbinding, unconscionable] This original proceeding presents the issue of whether the purchasers of a manufactured home must arbitrate their claims against both the retailer and manufacturer of the home pursuant to a written arbitration agreement between the purchasers and the retailer. The agreement specified that it inured to the benefit of the manufacturer and gave the manufacturer a twenty-day period during which it could opt out of arbitration. We conclude that the manufacturer’s opt-out right did not render the arbitration agreement unenforceable and that the purchasers must arbitrate their claims against both parties. Conclusion. . . . We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to order the Ripples to arbitrate their claims against the retailer and manufacturer. We conditionally grant the writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to compel arbitration of the Ripples’ claims. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to comply with our directive. Mack Trucks v. Tamez, No. 03-0526 (Tex. Oct. 27, 2006)(Justice Johnson) In this truck accident case the trial court excluded expert testimony as to what caused a post-accident fire that burned the truck and the driver. After excluding the expert testimony because it was not reliable, the trial court granted summary judgment. The court of appeals reversed. We hold that the trial court did not err, reverse the court of appeals’ judgment, and render judgment that the plaintiffs take nothing. Conclusion: The plaintiffs produced no evidence that the alleged defects of the Mack tractor were a cause- in-fact of injuries to Abram Tamez. Because causation is a required element of each of the Tamezes’ claims, the trial court properly granted summary judgment. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and render judgment that the plaintiffs take nothing. |
| 2006 Texas Supreme Court Opinions by Justice Phil Johnson |