Franklin S. Spears

Mancorp sued John Culpepper and Culpepper Properties for breach of a construction contract on the First Bank Galleria building, seeking the unpaid balance after completing the work. The defendants counterclaimed for defects in the building. The jury found that Mancorp substantially performed, that the company was Culpepper's alter ego, and awarded damages and fees after an offset for repairs, but the trial court granted judgment n.o.v. on the alter ego issue and the court of appeals affirmed. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that more than a scintilla of evidence supported the alter ego finding, including testimony on failure to observe corporate formalities, use of personal checks for corporate debts, business cards implying indistinguishability, and statements that Culpepper personally backed the project. The court remanded for consideration of the factual insufficiency point under the proper no-evidence standard that reviews only evidence supporting the verdict.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a mandamus action by Union Carbide and other defendants in a lawsuit brought by over two thousand plaintiffs alleging harm from toxic chemical exposure near the Lone Star Steel plant in Morris County, Texas. The defendants moved to transfer venue under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 257, asserting that an impartial trial could not be had locally, but the trial court denied the motion after limiting the hearing to a written record and refusing a continuance. The Texas Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the continuance, as it had previously indicated an evidentiary hearing would occur and thereby misled the defendants about the format for presenting proof. This ruling effectively denied the defendants their right to reasonable discovery under Rule 258, including the use of depositions and other materials, and deprived them of due process notice. The court conditionally granted mandamus to vacate the denial and allow time to supplement the venue record before a ruling.

proceduretorts & liability

Matthews Construction obtained a 1982 breach-of-contract judgment against Houston Pipe & Supply but could not collect; in 1984 it sued Rosen, the company's president and sole shareholder, claiming he had stripped the corporation of assets as its alter ego to evade payment. A jury found Houston Pipe was Rosen's alter ego used to perpetrate a fraud, and the trial court entered judgment against Rosen for the amount owed. The court of appeals held the second suit barred by limitations, but the Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that under Gentry v. Credit Plan Corp. the filing of suit against the corporation tolled limitations as to its alter ego. The court reasoned that the equitable policy against allowing the corporate form to cloak fraud or injustice extends to tolling limitations, because Rosen was not a legally separate entity and the claim was not stale. The court also rejected Rosen's res-judicata argument, noting that the second suit sought to enforce rather than attack the prior judgment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned the validity of the City of Richardson’s comprehensive animal control ordinance, which regulated vicious or dangerous animals, pit bull ownership, and related matters with criminal penalties. Responsible Dog Owners sued for declaratory judgment, arguing that Texas Penal Code sections 1.08 and 42.12 preempted the ordinance because it addressed the same subject as the state’s vicious-dog provisions. The trial court upheld the ordinance, but the court of appeals held it preempted and invalid. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the ordinance is not preempted because it is broader in scope, applies to all animals rather than only dogs, and can be reasonably construed alongside the narrower state statute without conflict, consistent with home-rule cities’ authority under the Texas Constitution.

criminal law

This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of Texas's Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgments Recognition Act, where Don Docksteader Motors sought to enforce a Canadian court judgment ordering Patal Enterprises to pay over $152,000. The trial court granted summary judgment to Patal, and the court of appeals affirmed, finding the Act unconstitutional for not providing a procedure to challenge recognition, thus violating due process. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Act incorporates enforcement methods from sister-state judgments, including common-law actions that afford notice and a hearing for defenses like nonrecognition. The court also addressed a reciprocity issue but ultimately remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

procedure

This case arose from the asphyxiation deaths of two workers employed by Christie, Inc., an independent contractor servicing a natural gas pipeline owned by Enserch Corporation, after a valve gasket failure released gas into a manhole. The plaintiffs sued the wrong Enserch-related entity initially, leading to a statute-of-limitations dispute over whether the amendment naming the correct defendant (Enserch d/b/a Lone Star Gas) related back; Enserch also sought contractual indemnity from Christie. The court affirmed the reversal of summary judgment on the wrongful-death claim and remanded it for trial, holding that under precedents like Continental Southern Lines v. Hilland, limitations may be tolled in misidentification cases if the proper defendant was not prejudiced. However, it reversed the court of appeals on the indemnity claim and reinstated the trial court's judgment enforcing the agreement, reasoning that the indemnity language was sufficiently conspicuous on the single-page contract to provide fair notice, unlike hidden clauses in cases such as K&S Oil Well Service.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory