Joe R. Greenhill

This case concerned the interpretation of a 1947 deed in which the grantors conveyed the surface estate of land in Texas to Cherokee Water Company while reserving the mineral estate and granting Cherokee a preferential right to purchase the minerals if the grantors agreed to sell them. Cherokee sued for declaratory judgment and specific performance after the mineral owners executed an oil and gas lease to a third party, claiming the lease triggered the right; the mineral owners counterclaimed for reformation of the deed. The trial court granted summary judgment to Cherokee, finding the lease constituted a sale and ordering specific performance while severing the reformation claim. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the deed language ambiguous and the severance improper. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the appeals court and affirmed the trial court, ruling that the deed language was unambiguous, that under Texas law an oil and gas lease qualifies as a sale triggering the preferential right, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in severing the counterclaim.

propertyprocedure

In Neely v. Community Properties, Inc., homeowners sued adjacent apartment developers for flooding that began after construction of a complex and its drainage system, which channeled rainwater onto their land; the jury awarded damages including for permanent injury and exemplary damages based on the defendants' reckless disregard. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding there was no evidence of permanent or exemplary damages and directing that permanent-damage issues not be submitted on substantially similar evidence. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for consideration of factual-sufficiency challenges, finding some evidence that an injunction would not succeed in stopping the flooding (supporting permanent-damage findings) and that the defendants displayed conscious indifference through unfulfilled mitigation promises and ignored approved plans (supporting gross-negligence findings under the no-evidence standard).

propertytorts & liability

This case involved a suit by Bob Carroll Construction Company against C. L. Tyra to recover payment for construction services on an open account, with Tyra filing a counterclaim seeking usury penalties under a Texas statute for an allegedly usurious interest claim in Carroll's original petition. The trial court ruled for Carroll and denied the usury claim, with implied findings that no interest was charged and that any inclusion of the interest request was due to accidental and bona fide error. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Texas Supreme Court also affirmed on the basis that the statutory exception for bona fide error applied. The core reasoning was that evidence, including invoices, demand letters without interest, the attorney's testimony about mistakenly copying language from another petition, and the company's lack of any prior practice of charging interest, supported the finding of accidental error without any instruction to seek interest.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a worker's compensation claim by Ben J. Weinberg against American General Fire and Casualty Company. Weinberg's claim was denied by the Industrial Accident Board for untimely filing, and he then sued in district court to appeal that decision. The district court granted summary judgment to American General on the ground that Weinberg had not filed suit within twenty days of his initial notice of appeal to the Board. The Court of Appeals reversed on an unassigned point of error regarding the lack of a verified denial, but the Texas Supreme Court reversed that decision and affirmed the trial court. The Supreme Court held that the suit was untimely because the second notice was ineffective under Board rules requiring filing in the Austin office, and the Court of Appeals improperly reversed based on fundamental error not raised by the parties.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Nagle v. Nagle, a divorced woman sued her ex-husband for failing to convey his half-interest in their Houston residence as orally promised during settlement talks over missed child support payments and a contempt motion; she also sued her attorney in the alternative for not putting the promise in writing. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the trial and appellate judgments that had awarded her damages based on jury findings of fraud and promissory estoppel, instead rendering judgment for the ex-husband. The core reasoning was that the Statute of Frauds bars enforcement of oral agreements to sell real estate, and equitable exceptions like fraud or estoppel do not apply to override the writing requirement in this context; the court also found no evidence supporting negligence by the attorney.

family lawpropertyproceduretorts & liability

In Frankiewicz v. National Comp Associates, an insurance agent sued his former employer to recover commissions on renewal premiums that were withheld after he took a job with another insurance agency. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer based on a non-competition clause in the agency contract that allowed forfeiture of commissions for violating the non-compete, and the appeals court affirmed. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the non-competition provision was an unenforceable restraint of trade because it lacked a reasonable territorial limitation, and therefore could not justify withholding the vested commissions.

business & regulatorylabor & employment