Deborah Hankinson

In this mandamus proceeding, three former customers sued CI Host, a web-hosting company, as putative class representatives for breach of contract, negligence, and deceptive trade practices after a server crash allegedly caused data loss and business interruptions. The plaintiffs sought production of certain computer backup tapes, which CI Host objected to on the ground that federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act section 2702 protected all information on the tapes from disclosure. The trial court overruled the objection and ordered production, and the court of appeals denied mandamus relief. The Texas Supreme Court held that CI Host failed to meet its burden under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.4 by producing no evidence that every item on the tapes constituted protected contents in electronic storage, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The Court therefore denied the requested mandamus without prejudice, noting the parties' agreement that some non-protected information existed on the tapes and that third-party privacy interests could be addressed through protective orders.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

Dallas County sued certified court reporter Sandra Halsey to recover payment for a trial transcript she prepared, alleging fraud, breach of contract, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act after another reporter identified thousands of errors in the record. Halsey sought summary judgment on grounds of derived judicial immunity, which the trial court denied but the court of appeals granted. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that court reporters are not entitled to derived judicial immunity for preparing a reporter’s record. The court reasoned that this function is ministerial rather than discretionary, as it requires accurate transcription but does not involve the exercise of judgment comparable to that of a judge. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved Exxon Pipeline Company's condemnation of a 50-foot easement across the Zwahrs' 49-acre farmland in Fort Bend County for an ethane pipeline, after which the parties litigated the fair market value of the 1.01-acre taking. The trial court admitted testimony from the Zwahrs' appraisal expert valuing the easement as a separate economic unit with a highest and best use as a pipeline corridor, leading to a jury award of $40,000; the court of appeals largely affirmed but reduced the judgment. The Texas Supreme Court held that the expert's opinion was inadmissible under Texas Rule of Evidence 702 because it impermissibly relied on value enhancement created by Exxon's own project and failed to apply the required before-and-after valuation method to the entire 49-acre tract. The Court therefore reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Travis County and Pelzel & Associates over payment withheld under a construction contract for an office building, with Pelzel alleging improper withholding of liquidated damages. Travis County filed a plea to the jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity, which the trial court denied and the court of appeals affirmed, finding waiver by conduct and compliance with the presentment statute under Texas Local Government Code § 89.004. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 89.004 does not waive sovereign immunity from suit and that the county's conduct did not constitute a waiver, thus dismissing the claim for lack of jurisdiction because express consent is required to sue a governmental entity.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

Jimmy Apodaca sued his employer, Excel Corporation, a nonsubscriber to the Texas workers' compensation system, alleging negligence and gross negligence for failing to provide a safe workplace at its beefpacking plant, which he claimed caused his cumulative trauma disorders in his neck, back, and wrist. The trial court entered judgment on the jury's verdict in Apodaca's favor, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that Apodaca presented no legally sufficient evidence that Excel's negligence was the cause in fact of his injuries. The court reasoned that while evidence showed his injuries were work-related and that the job involved repetitive motions, there was no proof that different workplace practices or modifications by Excel would have prevented or reduced his specific injuries.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

In Lenz v. Lenz, a divorced mother sought to modify the joint managing conservatorship established in the divorce decree to remove a Texas residency restriction so she could relocate with her two children to Germany. A jury found that the statutory requirements for modification were met and that the mother should have the exclusive right to determine the children's primary residence, but the trial court imposed a geographic restriction limiting residence to Bexar County and declined to award attorney's fees. The court of appeals affirmed, but the Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that legally sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict under former Family Code § 156.202 and that § 105.002 prevented the trial court from overriding the jury's determination of the primary residence issue by adding a residency restriction. The court rendered judgment granting the mother the exclusive right to establish the children's primary residence and remanded the attorney's fees issue for reconsideration.

family law