Source: http://texas-opinions.com/Tex-2011-Tex-Sup-Ct-Per-Curiam-Opinions.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:30:53+00:00

Document:
the state actors in their official capacity. This is true even though the suit is, for all practical purposes, against the state.”).
firefighters to replead in light of Heinrich and seek appropriate relief, if any, against the relevant city officials.
with this opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 59.1, 60.2(d).
over the care and maintenance of the cemetery.
trial court abused its discretion and conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus.
requires that they use AAA to appoint the arbitrator.
required to be arbitrated pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16.
comply, and the writ will issue only if it fails to do so.
also argues that the declaratory judgment against it was unwarranted.
We agree and accordingly reverse and render judgment for Etan.
Univ.-Kingsville v. Yarbrough, 347 S.W.3d 289, 290 (Tex. 2011).
ETAN INDUSTRIES, INC. AND ETAN INDUSTRIES, INC., D/B/A CMA CABLEVISION AND/OR CMA COMMUNICATIONS v.
information was readily accessible and publicly available, the royalty owner’s claims are time-barred as a matter of law.
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Lehrmann delivered the opinion of the Court.
appeals’ judgment and remand the case to the court of appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
(reason for grant of new trial required, even if original judge replaced)(mandamus granted).
judge who signed the order resigned, and we remanded the case pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.2(b).
much as it would be entitled to know the reasons for the orders entered by the former trial judge.” In re Columbia Med. Ctr.
holding in In re Columbia, we conditionally grant relief.
Columbia, 290 S.W.3d at 215 (requiring reasons to be “clearly identified and reasonably specific”).
We are confident that the trial court will comply, and our writ will issue only if it does not.
In this case we must decide whether the court of appeals erred in dismissing Ryland Enterprise, Inc.’s appeal as untimely.
argument, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and remand the case to that court.
remand to that court for consideration of Ryland’s appeal.
hearing oral argument, the Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
KOUROSH HEMYARI AND UNION VALLEY RANCH, L.P. v. GARY BEN STEPHENS, STEPHENS GROUP, L.
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Link to e-briefs: BARTH v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
The determination whether the federal lawsuit is moot must be made by the Fifth Circuit.
determination of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
the writ will issue only if it does not.
Here is the link to e-briefs in case no. 10-0364 IN RE GUARANTY INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.
In Re Alice Puit, No. 10-0460 (Tex. Jul. 1, 2011)(per curiam opinion) (mandamus denied)(dominant and vs.
not a plea to the jurisdiction as the relators filed here. See Wyatt v. Shaw Plumbing Co., 760 S.W.2d 245, 247–48 (Tex.
note that the improper denial of a plea in abatement may, on occasion, warrant mandamus relief. See, e.g., Curtis, 511 S.
jurisdiction” by a court possessing dominant jurisdiction, mandamus relief is appropriate. Id.; see Perry v. Del Rio, 66 S.W.
relators’ appellate remedy is unnecessary. Accordingly, the relators’ petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
remand to that court for further proceedings.
proceedings. TEX. R. APP. P. 59.1.
to serve an expert report. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.001(a)(13).
court of appeals erred in holding otherwise.
be dismissed because no expert report was served.
Procedure. The trial court is directed to vacate its order dated January 29, 2010, and to grant relators’ motions to quash.
We are confident that the trial court will promptly comply, and the writ will issue only if it fails to do so.
FAA would preempt the Texas act. They did not raise any such defenses, nor did they question the agreement’s existence.
to arbitration or were estopped from enforcing it.
VERONICA ELLIS AND PACESETTER BUILDERS, INC. D/B/A COLDWELL BANKER PACESETTER STEEL REALTORS v.
we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the case to that court for further proceedings.
appeals’ judgment and remand the case to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
dismissal of this appeal and remand the case to the court of appeals for further proceedings.
filing fee, order the preparation of Hawkins’ record at no cost, and consider the appeal on its merits.
appeals for further proceedings. Tex. R. App. P. 59.1.
remand the case to the court of appeals for further proceedings. Tex. R. App. P. 59.1.
court of appeals for further proceedings. Tex. R. App. P. 59.1.
CARMELITA P. ESCALANTE, M.D., E. EDMUND KIM, M.D., EDGARDO RIVERA, M.D., AND FRANKLIN C. WONG, M.D. v.
judgment and remand the case to the court of appeals for further proceedings. Tex. R. App. P. 59.1.
case to that court to review the remaining basis for dismissal: the report’s adequacy under section 74.351(l), (r)(6).
View Electronic Briefs in 09-0830 ROSEMOND v. MAHA KHADIFA ALI-LAHIQ, M.D.
further proceedings. Tex. R. App. P. 59.1.
reclassified an asset originally divided in a 1981 divorce decree. For the reasons expressed below, we hold that it did.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 74
 v.

 v.

 v.