Opinion ID: 6320574
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Remand for New Trial as to FieldTurf

Text: As a general matter, we have consistently held that when multiple grounds for reversal of a trial court’s judgment are presented, courts of appeals should “first address issues that would require rendition” and thus should consider those issues before ordering a remand. Nat. Gas Pipeline Co. of Am. v. Pool, 124 S.W.3d 188, 201–02 (Tex. 2003) (citations omitted). However, even when rendition would otherwise be warranted, our rules of appellate procedure allow discretion for a remand when “the interests of justice require” it. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.3(b). We have said that the “most compelling case” for such a remand “is where we overrule existing precedents on which the losing party relied at trial.” Carowest Land, Ltd. v. City of New Braunfels, 615 S.W.3d 156, 158–59 (Tex. 2020) (citation omitted); see also Transp. Ins. Co. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d 10, 13, 26 (Tex. 1994) (remanding where the Court’s opinion provided a “substantial clarification” of the law). Another circumstance meriting a remand in the interest of justice, and the one relied on by the court of appeals here, is when the trial court’s error prevented full development and presentation of the evidence. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Frederick, 621 S.W.2d 595, 596 (Tex. 1981); see also Tex. Windstorm Ins. Ass’n v. Dickinson Indep. Sch. Dist., 561 S.W.3d 263, 280 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. denied) (“As the entire trial proceedings were premised on erroneous summary judgment orders, the more prudent course of action is to restore the parties to the status quo at the time of the summary judgment rulings and begin anew.”). But a remand for that reason must be supported by 12 the record, Jackson v. Ewton, 411 S.W.2d 715, 718–19 (Tex. 1967), and we find no such support in this record. The court of appeals provided no explanation, and we discern none, for its conclusion that the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Altech, even if erroneous, affected development or presentation of the evidence at trial on the District’s remaining claim against FieldTurf. The District does not defend the court of appeals’ reasoning, arguing only that the trial court’s error in instructing the jury on the measure of damages required a remand irrespective of the merits of FieldTurf’s appellate issues. But the court of appeals addressed neither party’s issues on appeal, and we express no opinion on their viability. We agree with FieldTurf that the case must be remanded to the court of appeals to address the merits of the parties’ appellate issues in the first instance.