2007 Opinions Written by Justice Dale Wainwright Citizens Ins. Co. of America v. Daccach, No. 03-0505 (Tex. Mar 2, 2007)(Justice Wainwright) [insurance, class certification, choice of law] As part of a trial court’s rigorous analysis for certification of a Rule 42(b)(3) class, a trial court must assess all of Rule 42’s requirements with awareness of res judicata’s preclusive effect on abandoned claims. See Bernal, 22 S.W.3d at 435. Although we hold that res judicata principles are applicable in class suits and could bar claims abandoned by the class representative, we do not dictate how plaintiffs should structure their case or which legitimate legal strategies they will pursue. We simply note that legal consequences attach to tactical and strategic decisions in class actions as in other lawsuits. While it is not per se inappropriate to abandon claims or for the trial court to certify a specific-issue class, the requirements of class certification must still be met. As we have cautioned above, a class representative’s abandonment of claims can affect the class representative’s ability to satisfy these requirements. Here the trial court failed to evaluate Rule 42’s prerequisites in light of the claims abandoned by the class representative. Therefore, we reverse the court of appeal’s affirmance of the trial court’s class certification order, decertify the class, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Tex. R. App. P. 60.2(d). Dissent by Chief Justice Jefferson In support of his writing, Justice Wainwright relies on language in Marmon v. Mustang Aviation, Inc., a case we decided a year before the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws was approved for publication. See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, Introduction (1971); Marmon v. Mustang Aviation, Inc., 430 S.W. 2d 182 (Tex. 1968). But the second Restatement embodied a major shift in conflict-of-law analysis, abandoning “dogma” in favor the most significant relationship test and the factors relevant thereto outlined in section 6(2). See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, Introduction. The Restatement makes clear that these factors form the basis for courts’ choice-of-law determinations, “absent a binding statutory mandate.” Id. The TSA “in this state” language is a far cry from a binding statutory mandate that Texas law governs to the exclusion of the laws of the fifty nations from which the class members hale. I would remand the case for a proper choice-of-law analysis. Because I disagree with the Court’s treatment of that issue, I respectfully concur in the Court’s judgment but not in section IV of its opinion. Wallace B. Jefferson, Chief Justice   2006 Opinions Authored by Justice Dale Wainwright F.F.P. Operating Partners v. Duenez, No. 02-0381 (Tex. Nov. 3, 2006)(Justice Wainwright) [Dram Shop Act, intoxication, negligence, proportionate responsibility] Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a dissenting opinion Justice O'Neill delivered a dissenting opinion   Thomas v. Long, No. 03-0204 (Tex. Apr. 21, 2006)(Justice Wainwright) [interlocutory appeal, ILA, summary judgment v. plea to the jurisdiction] Note: Justice Wainright also wrote and joined a number of dissenting opinions Also see ---> 2006 Texas Supreme Court Per Curiam Opinions | 2007 Per Curiam Opinions | Opinions by fellow justices: Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson | Justice Nathan L. Hecht | Justice Harriet O'Neill | Justice Scott A. Brister | Justice David Medina | Justice Paul W. Green | Justice Phil Johnson | Justice Don R. Willett |

Recent Texas Supreme Court Opinions by Justice Wainwright