Source: http://www.texasbarcle.com/CLE/TSCSearchResults.asp?szKeyword=&dtDate=&sSortBy=DTBROADCASTDATE&szOriginatingCounty=Tarrant+County&lOriginatingCourtID=
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 22:22:21+00:00

Document:
In this jail-inmate injury case a principal issue is whether the court of appeals correctly interpreted "in connection with" to reverse the county's summary judgment, based on immunity, for a broken chair the inmate used during medical treatment.
A principal issue is whether the federal Airline Deregulation Act preempts Lufthansa's state-law tortious-interference claim.
The principal issue in this wrongful-death suit is whether the appeals court erred by concluding the Texas Tort Claims Act's discretionary-function exception did not shield the water district's decision to allow a "scour hole" below a dam deeper than the channel's design.
In this contract dispute, alleging the plaintiff did not object to a jury question on contract formation until after the verdict, the issues are (1) whether his complaint is waived and, if not, (2) whether the appeals court erred by failing to conduct an appropriate sufficiency review.
The issue is whether a Texas court has personal jurisdiction over a Louisiana resident who got proceeds from a house sale in Texas in a fraudulent transfer.
The principal issue is whether a jury's fraud-in-the-inducement finding was proper if the jury also finds insufficient evidence of the plaintiff's only alleged specific agreement.
In this effort by grandparents to be designated primary decision-makers for their grandchild the issues are (1) whether the Family Code requires a showing that a parent to be either unfit or to have abdicated parental duties before the grandparents have standing to challenge the parent-child relationship and (2) whether the grandparents can show their actual care, control and possession of the child when evidence demonstrated both parents involved with the child's care.
The principal issues in this wrongful-death case are (1) whether the Texas Tort Claims Act's damages cap applies individually and not cumulatively for government contractors and (2) whether a bus driver employed by an independent contractor is a government employee under the Tort Claims Act.
The principal issue is whether a will beneficiary who seeks an accounting, alleges breach of fiduciary duty against co-executors and seeks a receiver violates a forfeiture clause.
The issue is whether the rule in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v Gandy - that a full adversarial trial must be shown to defeat a collusion allegation - applies to negate a defendant's assignment of a bench-trial award to plaintiffs seeking recovery from the defendant's insurer.
The issues are (1) whether a second trial court has jurisdiction to enjoin execution of another's judgment and (2) whether the district clerk acted without authority by attempting to collect litigation costs from indigent parties. In this case the district clerk assessed Campbell and others divorced in Tarrant County court costs despite uncontested affidavits that they were indigent. In each case the decrees cited that individual costs would be borne by the parties. After Campbell and others sued, the cases were consolidated in a district court different from those that granted the divorces. That court then enjoined the clerk from collecting the court costs. A divided appeals court reversed and dismissed, holding that only the courts that issued the decrees had jurisdiction to enjoin the district clerk.
A principal issue is whether the discovery rule delays limitations on a suit to reform a deed based on mutual mistake. In this case the Cades sued four months after limitations ended, after attempting to get Cosgrove to fix the mistake. In conveying their home and the two acres surrounding it, the Cades specified in the real-estate contract that they, as sellers, would retain the mineral interests. But the deed did not reserve the mineral interests. The Cades argue that the discovery rule should extend limitations on their suit, that is, that they could not have known until they did that the deed was contrary to the real-estate contract. The Cades chose the title company to prepare the deed and closing documents, which includes an agreement that Cosgrove, as buyer for a trust, would adjust or correct any errors or omissions necessary to comply with the sales contract. The trial court granted summary judgment for Cosgrove. The court of appeals reversed, holding that neither the Cades nor Cosgrove were entitled to summary judgment.
In this case over a "cost-free" overriding royalty on gross minerals production, from wells on Hyder's property that produced from an adjoining leasehold, a principal issue is whether post-production costs may be deducted from Hyder's overriding royalties. Hyder sued Chesapeake for underpaying royalties from Chesapeake's slant-drilling production from wells on Hyder's land. The central dispute is whether Hyder's lease with Chesapeake for oil-and-gas production from her minerals estate, allowing for post-production costs, should inform a provision that provides a cost-free 5 percent royalty for directional production from adjacent estates. The trial court ruled that Hyder was entitled to an overriding royalty free of post-production costs. The court of appeals affirmed.
In this case, alleging a pharmacy's negligence in preparing a compound for a physician to treat patients, the issues are (1) whether the pharmacy is a health-care provider under the medical-liability statute and (2) whether the Millers' negligence, fraud and warranty allegations establish health care-liability claims. The Millers sued for complications, including blindness, they attributed to bulk lipoic acid the pharmacy prepared for her doctor to treat her Hepatitis C symptoms. The pharmacy moved to dismiss the suit because the Millers did not serve an expert report required for a health care-liability claim. The Millers argue that the Texas Medical Liability Act, governing health care-liability claims, excludes pharmacists sued for mishandled or defective products. The trial court denied the pharmacy's dismissal motion. In a split decision, the court of appeals affirmed.
In this fraud suit by Byrd against the law firm that represented his ex-wife in a divorce, the issues are (1) whether attorney immunity protects lawyers who allegedly forged a bill of sale for property awarded to the ex-wife in the decree (with tax consequences to the ex-husband) and (2) whether the burden to show the attorney-immunity doctrine's fraud exception should be borne by the ex-husband as plaintiff. Byrd's suit against Cantey Hanger alleged that the firm prepared paperwork to transfer ownership of an airplane his ex-wife got in the divorce but arranged for its sale from Byrd's leasing company to a third party, falsely listing the ex-wife as the leasing company's manager. As a result, the leasing company incurred tax liability that the divorce decree specified the ex-wife would bear. The trial court granted summary judgment to the law firm on the immunity question. The appeals court affirmed.
The principal issue is whether the recreational-use statute limits the university's liability to a spectator who fell at a university stadium following an outdoor soccer game. In this case Sandra Williams sued for injuries after she tumbled five feet from the stands to a track when a padlocked gate gave way as she leaned against it. The university filed a jurisdictional plea, arguing that it did not have liability under the recreational-use statute. That argument is based on a statutory clause defining recreation as "any other activity associated with enjoying nature or the outdoors" in addition to specific activities like hunting, fishing and camping. Williams contends that watching sports, a passive activity, cannot be broadly defined by a clause amplifying a list of participatory outdoors activities. The trial court denied the university's dismissal motion. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that watching sports was not among the statute's recreation definitions.
In this parental-rights termination, the issue is whether the appeals court, deciding this case en banc, erred in its factual-sufficiency review by failing to evaluate evidence on which a panel relied to reverse the termination order. State child-protection workers moved to terminate the father's parental rights after one of his two children was admitted to a hospital suffering a seizure while under the mother's care. Testimony established an initial diagnosis attributing the seizure to a sodium deficiency, perhaps related to inadequate nutrition. While the child was in the hospital, a doctor assessed her condition as "failure to thrive" and linked that to longstanding food deprivation. But expert testimony said the condition would not be evident to a lay person and the child did not appear emaciated. In a dissent from the court's en banc opinion, two justices on the panel that reversed the termination order objected to the court's failure to evaluate that and other evidence: that without further testing the failure to thrive could not be established, that the child appeared only slightly underweight and that, concerning the other child, limited evidence linked the child's ear injury to a slap and no evidence supported that the second child was malnourished.
The issue is whether an intentional tort under the Texas Tort Claims Act is defined only by a government employee's intent to act or by both the intent to act and the resulting harm. In this case Gordon sued for injuries to his wrists after officers arresting him for drunken-driving handcuffed him (too tightly, he complained). The city moved to dismiss on a jurisdictional plea, arguing that Gordon's claim was barred by the intentional-tort exception to the immunity waiver for tangible personal-property use under the tort claims act because the handcuffing itself was intentional. The trial court denied the city's plea. On interlocutory review, the court of appeals affirmed, holding that Gordon pleaded facts to establish negligence and the handcuffing, in any event, followed the officers' affidavit testimony that it was according to training standards and not to intentionally injure him.
A principal issue is whether the review standard should be greater than deference when a trial court grants a special appearance to contest personal jurisdiction without live testimony. In the underlying case Moncrief alleges Gazprom, a Russian company, used trade secrets it acquired in Texas pursuant to negotiating a joint venture with Moncrief to establish a competing gas-production and marketing firm. In response Gazprom says its purpose in the Texas discussions was to settle a related federal lawsuit. Without hearing live testimony, the trial court granted Gazprom's special appearance. The court of appeals affirmed.
The issue in this negligence case seeking sentimental-value damages for a pet dog mistakenly euthanized is whether intrinsic or sentimental value can be recovered.
The issues are (1) whether the Texas Workers' Compensation Division has continuing jurisdiction to consider new evidence challenging lifetime workers-compensation benefits awarded years before and (2) whether the workers-comp insurer is precluded by collateral estoppel or the prior ruling in the case from contesting the lifetime benefits. In this case Liberty Mutual in 2009 sought a new hearing to challenge lifetime-income benefits Adcock was awarded in 1997, alleging new evidence that Adcock's disability was no longer permanent. In the earlier hearing Adcock won the benefits for total and permanent functional loss of a foot and hand. On Liberty Mutual's appeal from a determination that Adcock was still entitled to the benefits, the trial court granted Adcock's summary-judgment motion. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the Legislature intended that the Workers' Compensation Division did not have continuing jurisdiction to review lifetime benefits once awarded.
The principal issues are (1) whether Family Code 3.201's two instances making a spouse liable for the other's debts establish the exclusive means to hold a spouse personally liable for the other spouse's debts; (2) whether the attorney fees for the spouse sued for divorce were necessities; and, if so, (3) whether the other spouse failed to discharge his support duty to make him personally liable for the fees. Tedder's wife retained the Gardner Aldrich law firm to represent her after Tedder sued for divorce and child custody. Her contract with the firm specified that she would be responsible for the attorney fees but that the firm would seek to collect from Tedder. Tedder paid $50,000 to the firm, but Gardner Aldrich intervened to secure its unpaid fees after the custody decision. The trial court awarded the firm $151,800 for its unpaid fees against the ex-wife and gave her judgment for fees against her ex-husband. Before the divorce decree was signed, however, Tedder and his ex-wife agreed to leave her solely liable for the fees. The trial court's judgment incorporated their agreement. Several days later she filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. On review, the appeals court reversed and rendered judgment against Tedder, holding that the fees were community debt and necessities for which he was jointly and severally liable.
The principal issue in this case is essentially the same ownership question as those in 11-0332, Robert Masterson, et al. v. Diocese of Northwest Texas, et al., below: Whether in Texas a diocese seeking to leave the U.S. Episcopal Church or the larger Episcopal governing entity owns the church property in the diocese. The specific issue is whether ownership should be decided by "neutral principles"--using established trust and property law and taking account of deeds, the governing language employed by a local church and the larger denomination--or by "deference"--determining in a hierarchical church structure where church members place ultimate authority over property use. In this case the Fort Worth diocese, seeking to split from the larger national Episcopal church, appeals directly from summary judgment for the national church. The trial court used the deference approach to decide that the national church owned church property in the diocese.
06-0418 HCBeck Ltd. v. Charles Rice from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth For petitioner: David Rodriguez Weiner, Dallas For respondent: Paul Boudloche, Fort Worth The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the issue of whether contractor is immune because construction-site owner pays workers comp premiums for subcontractor's employee. The principal issue is whether a general contractor has "provided" workers compensation insurance when the construction-site owner pays premiums for a subcontractor's insurance. In this case the site owner paid workers comp premiums for HCBeck employees and for those of a subcontractor, Greer, that HCBeck hired. Its contract with HCBeck, the owner reserved the right to provide workers comp insurance for HCBeck and subcontractors but, if not provided, required that HCBeck buy the insurance from the owner's designated agent. The contract required subcontractors to comply with its terms. Greer, the subcontractor, was not an additional insured under HCBeck's policy. When Rice, the subcontractor's employee, sued HCBeck for negligence over a job injury, HCBeck argued that Rice was a "deemed employee" and that HCBeck was immune because Rice's exclusive remedy was workers comp. The trial court granted summary judgment for HCBeck, but the court of appeals reversed on the immunity issue.
06-0127 William Chu v. Chong Hui Hong from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth For petitioner: Murry B. Cohen, Houston For respondent: G. Stanley Cramb, Bedford The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the issue of whether third party can be liable in tort under Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. A principal issue arising from this divorce proceeding is whether an independent tort claim exists against a third party under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act when the alleged misconduct was fraud on the marital community. This case challenges a husband's sale of a doughnut store without his wife's consent as part-owner, allegedly with Chu's help in his capacity as attorney for the buyers. After the sale, the husband transferred the proceeds to Korean relatives before he then filed for divorce. Hong, the ex-wife, sued her ex-husband for divorce and Chu as a third party for fraud on the community estate. Jurors awarded damages for lost value and lost profits for the shop and $1.5 million in punitive damages against Chu. The court of appeals affirmed.
In the Matter of H.V. from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth For petitioner Tarrant County District Attorney: David M. Curl, Fort Worth For respondent: Michael Shawn Matlock, Fort Worth. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the issue of whether juvenile's request to call his mother was unequivocal request for lawyer and, if so, whether weapon discovered from statement was admissible. The issues in this murder case against a juvenile are (1) whether the boy's request to call his mother to seek an attorney was an unambiguous invocation of his right to counsel and (2) whether a gun found based on information in a suppressed statement was properly excluded as the "fruit of the poisonous tree." In this case H.V., a 16-year-old Bosnian immigrant who had been in the United States four years, was arrested as he tried to carry a bloody carpet from his house while police had the home sealed as they waited for a search warrant. In custody, a magistrate read H.V. his rights for a second time that day (this time he refused to sign a written warning). When he asked to call his mother so she could call an attorney, the magistrate told him that his only options were to ask for an attorney, make a statement to police or not make one. H.V. told the magistrate he was "only 16." The magistrate assured him that he could ask for an attorney if he wanted an attorney. H.V. then consented to talk with investigators. The trial court ruled that his request to call his mother was an unequivocal request for counsel and ordered his statement suppressed and the gun inadmissible as evidence. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the gun was inadmissible because it was obtained as a result of police failure to honor his request for an attorney, not a mere failure to warn him of his rights.
Pleasant Glade Assembly of God, et al. v. Laura Schubert from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth For petitioners: David M. Pruessner, Dallas For respondent: William O. Wuester, Fort Worth. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the issue of whether mental-anguish damages may be awarded for post-traumatic stress. The principal issues in this false-imprisonment and assault case are (1) whether mental-anguish damages may be awarded based on a post-traumatic stress diagnosis and (2) whether the expert testimony on post-traumatic stress syndrome was reliable. In this case, the daughter of an Assembly of God missionary alleged that members and ministers of a Colleyville church unlawfully restrained her when she was 17 for two hours on two occasions by holding her down and praying over her. In the first instance she told church members she saw a "vision," then collapsed. She claims she was carried into a church classroom and, kicking and screaming, held against her will as church members and a youth minister prayed over her. Three days later church members allegedly found her in a fetal position, took her to a room again and held her "spread eagle" against her will. Her parents initially sued on her behalf for battery and false imprisonment, claiming damages for personal injuries, mental anguish and post-traumatic stress. Defendants contend her mental anguish resulted from traumatic experiences in Africa and argue that she should not have been allowed to recover damages for mental anguish and that her expert testimony on post-traumatic stress disorder was not reliable. A jury awarded damages for mental anguish, admitting evidence of post-traumatic stress. The court of appeals affirmed in part, but reversed on damages awarded for future earnings.
06-0247 Ulico Casualty Co. v. Allied Pilots Association from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth For petitioner: Donald Colleluori, Dallas For respondent: B. Daniel Berryman, Fort Worth Principal issues are (1) whether an exception exists to the general rule that an insurer has no liability for defense costs for a claim after a policy's expiration when the insurer told the policyholder it would pay the costs and, if such an exception exists, (2) whether the court of appeals erred by characterizing the claim as one for contract breach for which attorneys fees can be awarded. In this case Ulico sued Allied for a declaration that it did not owe Allied defense costs in a suit Allied won. Allied had filed a claim when it was sued, in a separate suit, but filed it after its policy with Ulico expired. Despite that, Ulico told Allied that it would pay for Allied's defense in a letter that reserved its rights to contest coverage. In a subsequent letter the insurer restated that it would pay defense expenses "pursuant to" the earlier "reservation of rights" letter. The trial court awarded defense costs to Allied, based on waiver and estoppel - that Ulico had given up its right to deny defense costs by assuring Allied that its defense would be paid for. The court of appeals affirmed.
05-0882 Perry Homes, et al. v. Robert E. Cull and S. Jane Cull from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth The principal issues are (1) whether a defendant must show prejudice to establish that plaintiffs waived their arbitration rights and (2) whether the defendant is prejudiced by the plaintiffs' pretrial discovery that would not have been available in arbitration. In this case the Culls initially resisted arbitration of their complaints against Perry Homes about construction defects. The Culls argued that arbitration was unconscionable because the chosen arbitration procedure was expensive and biased. After they pursued discovery for close to a year before trial, the Culls then moved for arbitration. Perry opposed their motion, contending the Culls had waived their right to arbitrate. The trial court granted the Culls' motion. Perry challenged the Culls' arbitration award, but the trial court confirmed it and the court of appeals affirmed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.