Contact: Osler McCarthy,
Staff Attorney for Public Information
(512) 463.1441 or
click for email
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.
06-0933
Southwestern Bell Telephone L.P. v. Harris County Toll Road Authority and Harris County
from Harris County and the First District Court of Appeals, Houston
For petitioner: Mike A. Hatchell, Austin
For respondents: Bruce S. Powers, Houston
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the issue is whether the Transportation Code (section 251.102) allows for reimbursement of the utility’s relocation costs and provides for waiver of governmental immunity to enforce the claim. The issues in this dispute over costs of relocating underground cables are (1) whether the Transportation Code (section 251.102) allows for reimbursement of relocation costs and provides for waiver of governmental immunity to enforce the claim and (2) whether the utility has a sufficient property interest along a right-of-way to bring an inverse-condemnation claim for costs of moving its underground cables. In this case Southwestern Bell sued the county and toll-road authority for refusing to pay the $1.5 million it billed for relocating the cables to accommodate roadway expansion. The trial court awarded costs to the telephone company, but the court of appeals reversed.
Briefs
Court of appeals' opinion
Webcast
Transcript
06-1071
State Farm Lloyds v. Becky Ann Johnson
from Collin County and the Fifth District Court of Appeals, Dallas
For petitioner: Michael W. Huddleston, Dallas
For respondent: Russell J. Bowman, Dallas
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the principal issue is whether an appraisal clause in a homeowner’s policy gives appraisers authority to consider causation, coverage and liability in determining “amount of loss.” The principal issue is whether an appraisal clause in a homeowner’s policy covers a dispute over just the insurer’s amount-of-damage calculation instead of one determining causation, coverage and liability questions in setting the loss amount. In this case Johnson sued State Farm after it refused her request for an appraisal under a clause providing an appraisal mechanism if the insurer and insured “fail to agree on the amount of loss....” State Farm had determined that Johnson’s policy covered only $499 for hail-damaged shingles along the top of the roof, but her expert recommended a new roof, finding more extensive hail damage. The trial court granted State Farm’s summary-judgment motion, but the court of appeals held in reversing the case that the dispute about the extent of hail damage was a dispute about the loss amount.
Briefs
Court of appeals' opinion
Webcast
Transcript
07-0010
Galveston Central Appraisal District v. TRQ Captain’s Landing, L.P., and American Housing Foundation
from Galveston County and the First District Court of Appeals, Houston
For petitioner: Michael B. Hughes, Galveston
For respondents: John Ben Blanchard, Amarillo
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the issue of whether a community housing agency may claim an ad valorem tax exemption for property to which it holds equitable title but legal title is held by its development subsidiaries. The issue is whether a community housing agency may claim an ad valorem tax exemption for property to which it holds equitable title but legal title is held by a wholly owned development subsidiary. Together with TRQ Captain’s Landing, its subsidiary, American Housing Foundation sued the appraisal district over the district’s denial of a property-tax exemption for apartments to which TRQ held legal title. Under state tax law, such an exemption may be granted only to a qualified non-profit community housing-development organization that owns property for sale or lease to low- or moderate-income people. Galveston County Appraisal District argues that it holds equitable title in the apartments and that its intent in forming the subsidiary, to develop low-income housing, complies with the Legislature’s intent for tax exemptions. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appraisal district. The court of appeals reversed.
Briefs
Court of appeals' opinion
Dissent (Bland)
Webcast
Transcript
06-1084
Bison Building Materials Ltd. v. Lloyd K. Aldridge
from Harris County and the First District Court of Appeals, Houston
For petitioner: Tom Van Arsdel, Houston
For respondent: Kurt Arbuckle, Houston
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the principal issue of whether an appeal can be taken from a trial court’s order vacating in part an arbitration award without a rehearing. The principal issue is whether an appeal can be taken from a trial court’s order vacating in part an arbitration award without ordering a rehearing. In this case Aldridge, a Bison employee, moved for arbitration of a damages claim for a work injury under an agreement stipulating all work-related injury claims would be arbitrated but providing that an objection to an arbitration decision could be reviewed by a court. Bison moved to dismiss his claim, arguing that he had waived his right to arbitrate his damages because, after his injury, Aldridge signed a subsequent workplace-injury benefits waiver and release forgoing “the right to file a legal action ... for any and all damages sustained by me because of my injury” for benefits he got from Bison’s plan. Aldridge sued to set aside the arbitration decision. Noting “unanswered questions regarding fair notice and ambiguity of the post-injury waiver agreement, the trial court vacated that part of the award precluding arbitration of the damages claim. In a split decision, the court of appeals dismissed what it called an interlocutory appeal because it had no jurisdiction.
Briefs
Court of appeals' opinion
Dissent (Keyes)
Webcast
Transcript
07-0040
In re GlobalSantaFe Corp.
from Harris County and the 14th District Court of Appeals, Houston
For relator: Christopher Dove, Houston
For real party in interest: John M. Black, Houston
In this mandamus seeking the pretrial court to retain jurisdiction, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the principal issue is whether and by how much the Jones Act preempts Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code chapter 90. In this petition seeking to compel the pretrial multidistrict litigation court to retain jurisdiction over a silica case, the principal issue is whether and by how much the federal Jones Act preempts the state’s multidistrict litigation procedures. Under the Jones Act, a ship’s hand or sailor claiming a work injury aboard ship may file a state lawsuit free of any minimum-injury requirement imposed on personal-injury suits by state law. Lopez, who claims injury from silica, argues that restrictions imposed on his case by Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 90, the MDL procedures, are substantive limitations forbidden by the federal law: The MDL procedures for silica cases exist to bar people with minimum injury from filing suit and a medical report that failed to meet a threshold standard to forgo the MDL pretrial process was a report the Jones Act barred. The MDL pretrial court remanded Lopez’s case to the trial court and the court of appeals denied GlobalSantaFe the mandamus relief it sought..
Briefs
Court of appeals' opinion
Webcast
Transcript
07-0135
East Texas Salt Water Disposal Co. Inc. v. Richard Leon Werline
from Gregg County and the Sixth District Court of Appeals, Texarkana
For petitioner: Greg Smith, Tyler
For respondent: Gregory J. Wright, Longview
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the issue is whether a trial court’s order vacating an arbitrator’s award and directing a rehearing give the court of appeals interlocutory jurisdiction. The issue is whether a trial court’s order vacating an arbitrator’s award and directing a rehearing gives the court of appeals interlocutory jurisdiction. In this case the company sued to vacate an arbitrator’s award of two years’ salary, attorney’s fees and arbitration costs to an employee in a dispute over his employment agreement. The trial court vacated the arbitration award, ruling that it resulted from evident partiality, willful misconduct and gross mistake. On appeal, the court reversed and rendered judgment confirming the award, holding that the Texas Arbitration Act allows appellate review of a trial court order denying confirmation of an arbitration award.
Briefs
Court of appeals' opinion
Webcast
Transcript
06-0372
Columbia Rio Grande Healthcare L.P. v. Alice H. Hawley and James A. Hawley
from Hidalgo County and the 13th District Court of Appeals, Corpus Christi/Edinburg
For petitioner: Charles Watson, Austin
For respondents: Darrin Mitchell Walker, Kingwood
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on among principal issues in this medical-malpractice and wrongful death case against a hospital are (1) whether the trial court erred by refusing an instruction on new and independent cause when a pathology report diagnosed cancer that the patient did not receive for almost a year; (2) whether the trial court erred by refusing a “lost chance” instruction when conflicting evidence assessed the patient’s survival chances; and (3) whether by failing to instruct the jury to disregard the independent pathologist’s negligence the trial court commingled valid and invalid liability theories. The Hawleys sued the hospital, claiming the hospital was at fault for the pathology report’s delay and that when she learned of the cancer after it became untreatable. She died while the case was on appeal. The trial court refused instructions on new and independent cause – that the doctors’ delay in reading the pathology report caused any delay in the prospect of treatment; on “lost chance” – that the delay did not harm her because her chances of survival might have been less than 50 percent; and on not taking account of the pathologist’s possible negligence as negligence by the hospital, because the pathologist worked for an independent contractor, not the hospital. The court of appeals affirmed.
Briefs
Court of appeals' opinion
Dissent (Castillo)
Webcast
Transcript
07-0055
In re Gulf Exploration LLC, et al.
from Midland County and the 11th District Court of Appeals, Eastland
For relators: James M. Chaney, Oklahoma City
For real party in interest: Brad Miller, Midland
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the principal issues are whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review a trial court order compelling arbitration and, if so, whether the appeals court erred by vacating the order on grounds that claims were outside the scope of the arbitration clause. In this case working interest partners in an oil- and gas-development agreement moved to arbitrate their claim that the operating partner, Great Western, used an acquired lease adjacent to the development tract to drill offset wells that drew from the reservoir subject to their development agreement and that, under the operating agreement, the operating partners should have been given a right to participate. The agreement included an arbitration provision covering claims over areas of “mutual interest.” The trial court granted the arbitration motion, but the court of appeals in a mandamus action ordered the trial court to rescind the arbitration order because the claim was beyond the scope of the arbitration provision.
Briefs
Court of appeals' opinion
Webcast
Transcript
07-0091
Trammell Crow Central Texas Ltd. v. Maria Gutierrez, et al.
from Bexar County and the Fourth District Court of Appeals, San Antonio
For petitioner: W. Wendell Hall, San Antonio
For respondents: Joe Stephens, Katy
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the issues are (1) whether past crimes were similar enough to make a crime foreseeable, triggering a duty to protect an invitee and (2) whether legally sufficient evidence supported the conclusion that breach of the duty proximately caused the invitee’s injuries. In this case Gutierrez’s husband was killed in an attack in shopping center parking lot outside a theater he and his wife had left. Trammel Crow’s trial evidence suggested Gutierrez may have been targeted for a “hit” because, after his arrest for burglary, Gutierrez turned information on other suspects and told police he feared a drive-by shooting as retaliation. But Gutierrez’s wife presented evidence that he was not afraid of an attack; that his wallet was stolen in the attack and his gold bracelet was broken (indicating a robbery by strangers); and that 10 robberies occurred on the premises among 220 crimes reported there in the previous two years. Her evidence indicated five of those robberies involved deadly weapons. Jurors awarded her a multi-million dollar verdict. The court of appeals affirmed, finding jurors could have determined the attack was a robbery by strangers, not a targeted killing, and was foreseeable.
Briefs
Court of appeals' opinion
Dissent (Duncan)
Webcast
Transcript