Will Wilson

The case involved a challenge by Houston Natural Gas Corporation to an order by the Railroad Commission of Texas setting new domestic gas rates for the City of Alvin after the city denied a requested increase. The Commission had determined a fair value rate base largely based on book cost and set rates yielding about 6.12% return, which the utility argued was inadequate and confiscatory under statutory standards requiring a fair return on fair value. The trial court granted summary judgment to the utility and enjoined the rates, but the Supreme Court of Texas reversed and remanded, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the fair value of the utility's property and the lowest rate of return needed to attract capital. The court emphasized that utility rate-setting is a legislative function and that the trial court must make its own factual findings on admissible evidence to assess whether the rates meet constitutional and statutory requirements.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involves a Texas suit to enforce a South Dakota judgment arising from foreclosure proceedings on a house trailer. The trial court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, finding a fact issue on whether the defendant had been properly served with process in South Dakota. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that questions of service were immaterial because the defendant's presence in the South Dakota courtroom during trial, along with participation through counsel asserting defenses and seeking relief, constituted a voluntary appearance under South Dakota law equivalent to personal service. The court reasoned that the defendant's affidavit denying an "appearance" stated only a legal conclusion and did not create a fact issue contradicting the plaintiff's evidence of her physical presence and the attorney's actions on her behalf. The judgment was affirmed on April 18, 1956.

procedure

In McElhenny v. Thielepape, a patient who was a business invitee in a pediatrician's waiting room sued the doctor for personal injuries after she tripped over a moving children's glider swing while walking to the examination room in response to a nurse's signal. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for an instructed verdict, finding no liability, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed that judgment. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the appellate decision and affirmed the trial court's judgment for the defendant, holding as a matter of law that the glider was not an inherently dangerous instrumentality, the plaintiff had observed its limited movement for nearly an hour and could have avoided the path by moving a small chair, and the premises owner had no duty to warn of or protect against such obvious conditions or to act as an insurer of invitees' safety.

torts & liability

The case was an original habeas corpus proceeding challenging whether a county court had jurisdiction to enjoin the operation of a bawdy house as a nuisance under Art. 4666. The court held that the county court lacked jurisdiction to issue the injunction, rendering the contempt commitment void and ordering the relator discharged. The core reasoning was that precedent, including De-Witt County v. Wischkemper, requires a fixed amount in controversy between $200 and $1,000 for county court injunction jurisdiction, and no such value was alleged here despite the misdemeanor nature of the underlying conduct.

procedurecriminal law

This case concerned a dispute over whether intrastate or interstate rail freight rates applied to 31,852 tank carloads of crude oil shipped from Midland, Texas, to coastal points. Humble Oil had paid the interstate rate but sought a refund, arguing that some of the oil originated in Texas and should have qualified for the lower intrastate rate. The oil from Texas and New Mexico fields was commingled at a pipeline tank farm, making it impossible to identify the origin of oil in any specific carload. The Texas Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the railway, holding that Humble failed to meet its burden of proving the intrastate rate applied because no tariff existed for mixed interstate-intrastate loads and the commingling prevented tracing specific shipments.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved railroads and out-of-state sugar refineries challenging a Texas Railroad Commission order that reduced certain intrastate freight rates on sugar shipments. The Commission had issued the reduction after an in-state refinery complained that existing rates were too high and discriminatory compared to interstate rates. The Supreme Court of Texas held that the order could not stand, reasoning that Texas statutes did not authorize the Commission to adjust intrastate rates based on their relationship to interstate rates or to address discrimination involving out-of-state shippers.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The City of Corpus Christi sued Mrs. McCarver to remove obstructions from a dedicated public alley and for damages. Mrs. McCarver claimed the alley had been terminated as to her property through ten years of exclusive, peaceable, and adverse possession prior to 1939, supported by a jury finding that a rent house had been built and rented on the alley. The trial court entered judgment for Mrs. McCarver, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed in favor of the City. The Supreme Court of Texas held that a public alley could be lost through adverse use before the 1939 amendment to Art. 5517, that the jury findings established such possession, and that references to the original plat in later conveyances did not constitute rededication as a matter of law; it therefore reversed the Court of Civil Appeals and remanded the case to that court to address the sufficiency of the evidence, without adjudicating title.

property

The case involved a plaintiff passenger seeking damages for personal injuries from a collision while riding in an ambulance hired by his fiancée to transport her to a hospital. The trial court granted an instructed verdict for the defendant ambulance owner, which was affirmed on appeal, on the ground that the plaintiff qualified as a guest under Article 6701b and thus could not recover for ordinary negligence. The Texas Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the guest statute did not apply because the fiancée had hired the ambulance and invited the plaintiff to accompany her, the payment for her transportation motivated the trip, and the statute's anti-collusion purpose was not implicated. The court concluded that the plaintiff was not a guest of the owner without payment for the transportation.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case was a will contest in which contestants alleged that a testator's will resulted from undue influence by his daughters, who were principal beneficiaries. A jury found undue influence, but the trial court disregarded the verdict and admitted the will to probate, finding no supporting evidence; the Court of Civil Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court of Texas held there was no evidence of undue influence, reinstating the trial court's judgment. The court reasoned that while the evidence showed a confidential relationship, opportunity, motive, family friction, and the testator's dependence on the daughters, it failed to prove that the daughters substituted their will for the testator's free agency at the time the will was executed in a public courthouse without their presence or involvement in its preparation.

family lawprocedure

This case concerns a dispute between mineral owners and an oil company over royalty payments from wells on the Davis Survey in Nueces County. The plaintiffs alleged they were owed a full one-sixty-fourth royalty without reduction for state royalties or unitization agreements, sought a declaratory judgment that certain lease and pooling provisions were void, and challenged whether the Davis Survey conflicted with state-owned land. The Texas Supreme Court held that the suit was in substance one for recovery of land and to quiet title under subdivision 14 of Article 1995, because resolving the royalty claims required determining the survey's location and the validity of real-property conveyances. The court therefore affirmed the trial court's venue ruling and reversed the Court of Civil Appeals.

propertyprocedure

The case Corona v. Garrison involved an appeal from a district court's denial of an injunction to stop a justice court proceeding initiated by the Department of Public Safety to determine if the appellant was a habitual traffic law violator under Section 22 of Article 6687-b. The Texas Supreme Court considered whether it had direct appeal jurisdiction, which is limited to cases where the trial court grants or denies an injunction based on the constitutionality of a state statute. Although the appellant challenged the statute's constitutionality, the district court denied the injunction on grounds that no injuries had occurred yet and an adequate legal remedy existed, without addressing constitutionality. Consequently, the court held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

procedure

This case involved a father seeking to modify a prior divorce decree that had awarded custody of his four-year-old daughter to her maternal grandparents. The trial court found no material change in circumstances warranting a change and awarded custody to the grandparents based on the child's best interests, despite a jury verdict favoring the father. On appeal, the Texas Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that altering the child's established living arrangements would not positively improve her welfare, reversing the intermediate appellate court's decision that the father was entitled to custody as a matter of law upon showing changed conditions. The court emphasized that while a presumption favors natural parents, it does not control after a final prior custody judgment.

family law

The case concerned a challenge by taxpaying property owners to the constitutionality of a Texas statute authorizing water control and improvement districts to construct and finance sanitary sewer systems through tax-supported bonds. Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the district's use of $50,000 in bond proceeds for a sewer disposal system, arguing the delegation exceeded authority under Sections 52 of Article 3 and 59a of Article 16 of the Texas Constitution. The court upheld the statute, concluding that the authority to build and operate such systems is clearly permitted under the Conservation Amendment in Article 16, Section 59a, as it advances the public duty to protect water purity and prevent pollution by returning treated water to the hydrological cycle. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

environmentproperty

This case involved a dispute over which party body had the authority to nominate a Democratic candidate for a newly created special district court judgeship in Bexar County, Texas, for the November general election, after no nominee was selected in the primary. Relator Williams, certified by the State Democratic Convention, sought a writ of mandamus to have his name placed on the ballot by the county clerk, while another candidate claimed nomination through county-level processes. The court determined that the position was a district office rather than a county office and that the State Convention possessed the power to make the nomination under party rules where the legislature had not specifically regulated the situation. It also ruled that Williams's declination of a prior nomination for another judicial position was timely. Accordingly, the court granted the mandamus.

elections

This case involved a claim under the collision coverage of an automobile insurance policy for damage to a parked car caused by debris from a building destroyed by a windstorm. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' judgments in favor of the insured, holding that the damage was not covered under the collision provision. The court reasoned that the insurance policies are standardized by the State Insurance Commission to separate different perils like collision and windstorm, allowing purchasers to choose coverage, and that interpreting windstorm damage as collision would undermine this structure and the separate purchase of windstorm coverage. The windstorm was the dominant force setting the events in motion, so the loss fell under the windstorm peril not purchased by the insured.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case is an insurance dispute between Home Insurance Company of New York and respondent Cox. It was treated as a companion to U.S. Insurance Co. of Waco v. Boyer and governed by the legal rules announced in that decision. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the trial court and the Court of Civil Appeals, rendering a take-nothing judgment against the respondent with costs taxed accordingly.

business & regulatory

This case involved a relator seeking habeas corpus relief after being held in contempt for failing to pay $400 monthly in temporary child support and alimony as ordered in a pending divorce proceeding. The court held that the filing of an appeal and supersedeas bond did not suspend the trial court's orders for child support or temporary alimony, allowing enforcement by contempt to continue. It reasoned that Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 364 explicitly prevents superseding child custody or support orders without specific bond terms, and longstanding precedent under Article 4637 holds temporary alimony orders interlocutory and enforceable despite appeal. After reviewing the record of the relator's resources and expenses, the court concluded the contempt judgment was not void for lack of ability to pay, though it was limited to one month's obligation.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned the timing of when a ruling by the Texas Employment Commission on unemployment benefits becomes final and whether a petition for judicial review filed before that point confers jurisdiction on the court. Stewart Oil Company filed its petition seven days after an adverse ruling, during the ten-day period before finality under the governing statute. The Texas Supreme Court held that the Commission's decision becomes final ten days after notification or mailing, and that the premature filing of the petition was valid because it remained on file when the ruling became final, thus establishing jurisdiction without need for refiling. The court reasoned from the statutory language in Article 5221b-4, long-standing administrative practice, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure's emphasis on merits over formalism, and analogy to federal precedent allowing premature appeals.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a supplier seeking payment from a subcontractor's surety bond and an individual guarantor for electrical equipment used in constructing dormitories at Texas A&M College, financed through revenue bonds. The court held that the bond qualified as a statutory bond under Article 5160, precluding recovery from the surety company because the plaintiff had not complied with the statute's notice requirements. However, the court found that correspondence between the supplier and Charles E. Curtis demonstrated a meeting of the minds on Curtis's personal guarantee of a $5,000 trade acceptance, rendering him individually liable despite minor differences in proposed payment terms. The decision reversed the Court of Civil Appeals on the personal liability issue while affirming the ruling on the bond.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff seeking to enjoin city officials from blacklisting him as a bondsman under a criminal procedure statute, claiming the statute was unconstitutional as a local law or violating due process. The defendants raised a plea in abatement based on res judicata from prior judgments on the same issues between similar parties. The trial court sustained the plea without addressing the constitutionality. The Supreme Court dismissed the direct appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as its direct appeal authority is limited to cases where the trial court ruled on the constitutionality of a statute, not on procedural bars like res judicata.

criminal lawprocedure