Contact: Osler McCarthy,
Staff Attorney for Public Information
(512) 463.1441 or
osler.mccarthy@courts.state.tx.us
The first argument begins at 9 a.m. in the courtroom in Austin. Each side will have 20 minutes for argument.
This advisory serves only as an abbreviated guide to oral argument. Summaries are prepared by the Court's staff attorney for public information and reflect his judgment alone on facts and legal issues and in no way represent the Court's opinion about case merits.
08-0658
Carroll Robinson, et al. v. Bill White, City of Houston and Houston City Council, et al.
from Harris County and the 14th District Court of Appeals, Houston
For petitioners: Andy Taylor, Houston
For respondents: Scott J. Atlas, Houston
The principal issues are (1) whether proponents who drafted and campaigned for a proposition and voted for it have standing to sue to declare it effective and, if so, (2) whether a "poison pill" provision associated with a competing proposition violates state law. In this case Robinson drafted and promoted Proposition 2, for a city revenue cap, which Houston voters approved in 2004 but by a smaller margin than a proposition for a property-tax revenue cap on the same ballot. The City Council refused to adopt Proposition 2 because of a provision associated with Prop 1, that among inconsistent propositions the proposition approved by most voters would prevail, and because of a similar City Charter provision. The trial court granted summary judgment to Robinson and the other Prop 2 organizers, but the court of appeals reversed and dismissed their claims, holding the organizers did not have standing.
Briefs
Court of appeals' opinion
Webcast
Transcript
08-0667
Eberhard Samlowski, M.D. v. Carol Wooten
from Johnson County and the 10th District Court of Appeals, Waco
For petitioner: Kay Ellington, Dallas
For respondent: Barney L. McCoy, Houston
The principal issue is whether a trial court must grant a 30-day extension to cure a deficient but arguably curable expert report in a medical-malpractice suit. In this case the trial court dismissed the suit with prejudice - barring refiling the suit - because the expert report did not adequately show how the alleged negligence proximately caused Wooten's injuries. Wooten alleged Samlowski's initial inaccurate diagnosis led to a second surgery and complications. The court determined the report was not a good-faith effort to comply with the expert-report requirement. The appeals court reversed to allow an extension to cure the report, holding that the expert report was not a good-faith effort but was a good-faith attempt to comply with the report requirement.
Briefs
Court of appeals' opinion
Dissent (Gray)
Dissent to rehearing denied (Gray)
Webcast
Transcript
08-0669
Dan Kelly and Laura Hofstatter v. General Interior Construction Inc.
from Harris County and the 14th District Court of Appeals, Houston
For petitioners: David C. Holmes, Houston
For respondent: Ross A. Sears II, Houston
In this jurisdictional challenge the principal issues are (1) whether Texas contacts to establish personal jurisdiction should be limited to pleadings that did not allege a disputed contract was a contact for a fraud claim or for Texas Trust Fund Act violations by the officers individually and (2) whether asserting jurisdiction over the corporate officers complies with federal due process and the Texas long-arm statute. In this case General Interior Construction, a Texas company, sued Kelly and Hofstatter over alleged payments due from Kelly and Hofstatter's general-contracting business incorporated in Arizona. Their company agreed with another Arizona firm for improvements to a Texas hotel the other firm owned. GIC alleged breach of contract, fraud and misappropriation of trust money Kelly and Hofstatter's firm held for paying subcontractors. The trial court found specific jurisdiction existed to require Kelly and Hofstatter to defend in Texas against all claims, but the court of appeals reversed on the contract-breach claim, based on Kelly and Hofstatter's signing the contract as corporate officers.
Briefs
Court of appeals' opinion
Dissent (Frost)
Webcast
Transcript
07-0945
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department v. The Sawyer Trust
from Donley County and the Seventh District Court of Appeals, Amarillo
For petitioner: Kristofer S. Monson, Austin
For respondent: Jody Sheets, Dallas
This dispute over a mining permit to take sand and gravel from what the state contends is a navigational stream bed raises these principal issues: (1) whether the state's jurisdictional immunity plea fails because the trust alleges the state is unconstitutionally "taking" its property and, if not, (2) whether state officials must be sued instead of the state itself. In this case the trust seeks to sell sand and gravel from the bed of the Salt Fork of the Red River traversing its property. By statute the state, through the parks department, owns sand and gravel in a navigable river streambed. The trust sued first to declare the Salt Fork at that point was not navigable, then added the takings claim. The trial court denied the state's jurisdictional plea and the court of appeals affirmed.
Briefs
Court of appeals' opinion
Webcast
Transcript
08-0799
State Farm Lloyds and Erin Strachan v. Wanda M. Page
from Johnson County and the 10th District Court of Appeals, Waco
For petitioners: Levon G. Hovnatanian, Houston
For respondent: John F. Melton, Austin
Principal issues in this mold-coverage case are (1) whether the standard Texas homeowners policy provides coverage for mold damage to a dwelling resulting from plumbing leaks; or (2) whether it provides mold-damage coverage for personal property in the dwelling; or (3) whether it provides coverage for both. Page sued State Farm for its refusal to replace her carpet after it repaired mold damage in her house and personal belongings. An underlying question is whether an exclusion-repeal provision in one policy part acts to override a mold exclusion in another part. The trial court granted summary judgment for State Farm, but the appeals court reversed.
Briefs
Court of appeals' opinion
Webcast
Transcript
09-0387
Carol Severance v. Jerry Patterson, et al.
certified questions from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
For appellant: J. David Breemer, Sacramento, Calif.
For appellees: Daniel L. Geyser, Austin
In this case involving Hurricane Rita's beach destruction in Galveston, and consequent change in public access under the Texas Open Beaches Act, the circuit asks: (1) whether Texas recognizes a "rolling" public beachfront-access easement; if so, (2) whether the rolling easement derives from common law or the Open Beaches Act; and (3) what extent the landowner would be entitled to compensation for loss of property use apart from the state's offer to remove houses on the easement.
Briefs
Opinion with certified questions and dissent
Webcast
Transcript