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.
08-0175
Whirlpool Corp. v. Margarita Camacho and Santos Camacho.
from Hidalgo County and the 13th District Court of Appeals, Corpus Christi/Edinburg
For petitioner: Lynne Liberato, Houston
For respondent: Kevin Dubose, Houston
Among principal issues in this product-liability case are (1) whether the court of appeals erred by failing to analyze expert testimony properly under a legal-sufficiency challenge, (2) whether expert testimony was improper because it was speculative on the safer alternative design and on the causation element; and (3) whether the trial court erred by failing to give a spoliation instruction because Whirlpool did not have notice of possible suit for three months despite plaintiffs’ experts evaluating a home fire scene within two days of a fatal fire. In this case the Camachos sued after fire destroyed their trailer home and killed their son. They claim defective design of a clothes dryer allowed accumulated lint to be drawn to the dryer heater, where it ignited, then started clothes in the dryer afire and spread to the house. Whirlpool’s challenge to the reliability of this theory, based on testing outside a dryer, was in part that the theory failed to explain that two T-shirts in the dryer did not burn. Whirlpool also complains that the Camachos had notice they would sue within days of the fire, but did not notify the company for several months, during which the fire scene was dismantled.
Briefs
Court of appeals' opinion
Webcast
Transcript
08-0262
Roy Kenji Yamada, M.D. v. Laura Friend, et al.
from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth
For petitioner: Kevin Carey, Fort Worth
For respondent: Jeff Kobs, Fort Worth
The principal issues are (1) whether this action, claiming wrongful death because defibrillators were negligently placed and improperly used by employees of a municipal water park, should be considered a health care-liability claim and (2) whether the court of appeals erred by dividing allegations into health-care and ordinary negligence claims. In this case a 12-year-old girl collapsed at a municipal water park of a heart attack attributed to cardiac-muscle disease. Her parents sued the city then added Yamada, who provided consultant medical services to the water park, because park employees improperly used a defibrillator. Yamada moved to dismiss the claim against him, arguing that the girl’s parents did not file an expert report as required in a health-care liability claim. He based that on a statutory definition of a health-care liability claim as one “for treatment, lack of treatment, or other claimed departure from accepted standards of medical care ... or safety or professional or administrative services directly related to health care....” The trial court denied the dismissal motion. On interlocutory review, the court of appeals affirmed the denial for claims it considered ordinary negligence and separated those from health-care liability claims that required an expert report.
Briefs
Court of appeals' opinion
Webcast
Transcript
08-0043
Timpte Industries Inc. v. Robert Gish and Pinnacol Assurance
from Hale County and the Seventh District Court of Appeals, Amarillo
For petitioner: Gary Bellair, Lubbock
For respondents: James Hoyt Wood, Amarillo
The principal issues in this product-defect case are (1) whether in its summary-judgment motion Timpte waived its no-evidence point by failing to address the requisite unreasonable danger element and, if not, (2) whether Gish presented enough evidence of a design defect that posed an unreasonable danger or of a safer alternative design.
Briefs
Court of appeals' opinion
Webcast
Transcript
08-0363
State Office of Risk Management v, Mary Lawton
from Brazos County and the 10th District Court of Appeals, Waco
For petitioner: Thomas M. Lipovski, Austin
For respondent: Stuart F. Lewis, Bryan
For amicus curiae Office of Injured Employee Counsel: Elaine Chaney, Austin
The issue is whether the State Office of Risk Management waived its compensability contest arising from a purported work-related knee injury by failing to raise the challenge within the statutory 60-day deadline. In this case the state got a magnetic resonance image (MRI) of the injured knee within a month of the injury but contested compensability only after a medical review determined the knee was subject to a degenerative disease.
Briefs
Court of appeals' opinion
Webcast
Transcript
08-0705
Boma O. Allison v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline
For appellant: Wayne H. Paris, Houston
For appellee: Cynthia Hamilton, Austin
The issues are (1) whether the quorum requirement was met in a grievance committee evidentiary panel and, if not, (2) whether the panel’s judgment was void.
Briefs
Court of appeals' opinion
Webcast
Transcript
07-0205
Waffle House Inc. v. Cathie Williams
from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth
For petitioner: Mark Emery, Washington, D.C.
For respondent: Susan E. Hutchison, S. Rafe Foreman, Grapevine
The issues are (1) whether the court of appeals erred in its definition of the duty owed by Waffle House to an employee in a negligent supervision and retention suit based on sexual harassment allegations and (2) whether legally sufficient evidence supported the jury’s punitive-damages award.
Briefs
Court of appeals' opinion
Webcast
Transcript
07-0815
Intercontinental Group Partnership v. KB Home Lone Star L.P.
from Hidalgo County and the 13th District Court of Appeals, Corpus Christi/Edinburg
For petitioner: Jesse R. Castillo, San Antonio
For respondent: Renée F. McElhaney, San Antonio
The issue is whether in a contract-breach action the plaintiff can be the prevailing party, for attorney fees purposes, when the jury found the defendant breached the contract but did not award damages.
Briefs
Court of appeals' opinion
Webcast
Transcript
08-0390
MBM Financial Corp. and Marimom Business Systems Inc. v. The Woodlands Operating Co., L.P.
from Montgomery County and the Ninth District Court of Appeals, Beaumont
For petitioner: Jennifer Bruch Hogan, Houston
For respondent/cross-petitioner: Karen D. Smith, The Woodlands
Among principal issues are (1) whether the court of appeals erred by reversing an attorneys-fees award for a breach-of-contract allegation for which nominal damages were awarded; (2) whether the appeals court erred by determining attorneys fees were proper in a declaratory relief action; and (3) whether the court erred by failing to award fees for a fraud claim that arose from the contract action.
Briefs
Court of appeals' opinion
Webcast
Transcript
08-0110
American General Finance Inc. v. Kyle Allen
from Bexar County and the Fourth District Court of Appeals, Corpus Christi/Edinburg
For petitioner: Richard C. Danysh, San Antonio
For respondent: Thomas H. Crofts Jr., San Antonio
A principal issue is whether a borrower qualifies as a consumer under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act when the lender promised escrow services in addition to the loan. In this case Allen sued American General Finance on a counterclaim after foreclosure of a house he owned on which the company made a home-equity loan and promised to pay outstanding taxes. Before this suit, Allen won excess proceeds from the house sale, which American General Finance then tried to get by imposing a constructive trust. Allen counterclaimed in that the company violated the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. On that claim the trial court granted summary judgment against Allen. The court of appeals reversed.
Briefs
Court of appeals' opinion
Webcast
Transcript
08-0444
Myrad Properties Inc. v. LaSalle Bank National Association
from Bell County and the Third District Court of Appeals, Austin
For petitioner: Miguel S. Rodriguez, Austin
For respondents: Keith M. Aurzada, Dallas
In this action to set aside a property sale following foreclosure the principal issues are (1) whether the foreclosure notice was sufficient, given that two properties were subject to foreclosure but only one was described, and (2) whether a correction deed may be used to add an additional property following a foreclosure sale. Myrad sued to declare its ownership in the larger of two apartment complexes supposedly conveyed by the foreclosure sale, arguing that the larger complex was not described in the foreclosure notice and that its indebtedness was satisfied by the foreclosure-sale proceeds. LaSalle, which held the note and bid at the sale, filed a corrected deed that included both apartment complexes in the sale. The trial court ruled for LaSalle, declaring the sale conveyed both properties and holding the correction deed valid. The court of appeals affirmed.
Briefs
Court of appeals' opinion
Dissent (Patterson)
Webcast
Transcript
08-0836
In re Weekley Homes L.P.
from Dallas County and the Fifth District Court of Appeals, Dallas
For relator: Craig T. Enoch, Austin
For real party in interest: Christopher H. Rentzel, Dallas
The issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering computer hard drives produced for a forensic expert’s copying and searching. In this mandamus action, Weekley Homes argues that the trial court granted the motion to compel under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192 (outlining permissible discovery) and not Rule 196.4 (production of electronic or magnetic data). A company sued Weekley Homes in the underlying action over defective lots it bought from Weekley and that Weekley had certified. The company, HFG Enclave Lane Interests Ltd., asked for emails sent to and from four Weekley employees and, based on alleged inconsistencies in what Weekley produced, asked for an order to copy the hard drivers to try to retrieve deleted documents. The court ordered production of the drives and production of any relevant emails under certain restrictions, which included first review by Weekley’s lawyers. The court of appeals denied Weekley’s mandamus petition.
Briefs
Court of appeals' opinion
Webcast
Transcript