Rose Spector

The case involved a dispute over liability for a 1990 fuel spill at a hospital helipad during helicopter refueling operations under a contract between Lubbock County Hospital District (UMC) and Rocky Mountain Helicopters. UMC sued Rocky Mountain for negligence and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), claiming the company failed to perform services in a good and workmanlike manner and made misrepresentations, after settling with other defendants. The trial court awarded damages including attorneys' fees under the DTPA, and the court of appeals affirmed the DTPA finding. The Texas Supreme Court held that no legally sufficient evidence supported the jury's DTPA verdict, as there was no implied warranty under the facts, the alleged contractual indemnity obligation was a mere breach of contract (not a DTPA violation), and any training policy deviation was not communicated to UMC. The court reversed the DTPA portion of the judgment and remanded for consideration of unresolved negligence issues.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned whether the Texas Railroad Commission could exempt Goodrich from temporary field rules for the Bammel Field due to lack of notice of the rules hearing. The Commission found that the prior operator had actual knowledge of Goodrich's interest and should have provided notice, making the rules void as to Goodrich, and allowed it to produce under statewide rules. The trial court upheld the Commission's order, but the court of appeals reversed, finding the exemption improper without addressing statutory factors like waste prevention. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the appeals court, holding that the Commission had authority to consider notice and that its decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a divorce proceeding in which the husband filed for divorce in 1988 and sought to limit the wife's property claims based on a 1979 divorce decree obtained in New Mexico without her knowledge. The wife filed a counterclaim alleging fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty regarding the secret divorce and the couple's subsequent cohabitation as spouses, seeking damages for her share of community property. The trial court and court of appeals held that the counterclaim was barred by the statute of limitations based on a jury finding that the wife could have discovered the decree earlier with diligence. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, ruling that section 16.069 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code allowed the counterclaim because it arose out of the same transaction or occurrence as the husband's divorce petition, specifically the facts determining the duration of the marital relationship, and thus preserved the claim even if otherwise time-barred.

family lawprocedure

This case concerns a petition for writ of mandamus arising from a legal malpractice suit in which the plaintiff alleged violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, negligence, and breach of duty by his former attorney in a workers' compensation matter. The trial court had granted a motion to exclude all of the plaintiff's expert witnesses for failure to meet the February 17, 1993, designation deadline set in an agreed docket control order. The Texas Supreme Court granted mandamus relief, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the witnesses. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff provided verified proof of mailing the designation letter, which created a presumption of receipt under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21a, and the defendant offered no evidence to rebut that presumption.

proceduretorts & liability

In Tilton v. Moye, a mandamus proceeding, relators Robert Tilton and the Word of Faith World Outreach Center Church challenged a trial court order requiring production of documents in response to two discovery requests in an underlying suit by Norma Smith asserting claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering production of both sets of documents. As to the request for records identifying persons claiming religious healing, the order violated the First Amendment right to freedom of association by compelling disclosure of individuals' religious beliefs without a compelling state interest or particularized showing of need. As to the request involving a draft legal memo, the trial court failed to conduct an in camera review to assess attorney-client privilege issues before ordering production.

religious libertyprocedurecivil rights

The case concerned whether ad valorem taxes accruing on estate property during dependent administration in Texas probate court constituted claims against the estate or created personal liability for the heirs, and which court had jurisdiction. After the decedent's 1973 death, the taxing authorities sued the heirs in district court for taxes from 1976-1986 and sought foreclosure plus personal judgment. The Supreme Court of Texas held that the taxes were claims against the estate under the Probate Code that should have been pursued in the pending probate proceeding, that heirs are not ordinarily personally liable during administration, and that the probate court had exclusive or dominant jurisdiction. It therefore reversed the court of appeals, which had allowed a personal judgment in district court, and dismissed the claims without prejudice.

taxespropertyprocedure

The case involved Charles and Dorinda Garrett, who purchased land intending to use it as an auto salvage yard but were later enjoined due to a restrictive covenant that the sellers had not disclosed. The Garretts settled their claims against the sellers for $69,000 and then sued the title companies, First Title Company of Waco and Alamo Title Insurance of Texas, for negligence and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act based on the companies' failure to discover or disclose the covenant in their title search and commitment. A jury found the title companies liable and awarded damages, but the trial court denied the companies' request to credit the prior settlement against the judgment. The Supreme Court of Texas held that the title companies were properly found liable under the DTPA but that they were entitled to a settlement credit under the one satisfaction rule because the record established as a matter of law that the settlement payments compensated the Garretts for the same indivisible injury. The court therefore reversed the court of appeals on the credit issue and remanded for further proceedings.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

This case involved a commercial lease dispute in which Rivercenter Associates sued All Ashore, Inc. and its surety to enforce lease and surety agreements and recover rental payments after an alleged default. After the defendants filed a jury demand, Rivercenter moved to quash it based on jury waiver provisions in the contracts, but the trial court overruled the motion. Rivercenter then petitioned for mandamus relief, arguing that the waivers required the jury demand to be quashed as a matter of law. The court denied the petition, holding that Rivercenter had waited over four months after receiving notice of the jury demand without any explanation for the delay and therefore had not shown the diligence required for mandamus, an extraordinary equitable remedy.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned the authority of the Texas General Land Office to interpret and apply the terms of state mineral leases when conducting royalty audits under the Natural Resources Code. The lessees challenged the agency's practice of issuing deficiency assessments based on its own determinations of lease types and royalty calculations, seeking declaratory relief that such contract rights could only be decided by courts. The Supreme Court of Texas held that the Legislature intended to grant the General Land Office power to interpret lease provisions during audits, but ruled that the statutory requirement forcing lessees to prepay disputed amounts before filing suit to contest the assessments was unconstitutional. The court therefore affirmed the lower courts' summary judgments in favor of the lessees, though on different grounds than the courts of appeals. The opinion focused on statutory construction of sections 52.135 and 52.137 and separation-of-powers principles under the Texas Constitution.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure