The case concerned a dispute over an attorney fee agreement in which Anglo-Dutch Petroleum engaged lawyer Gerard Swonke to assist in litigation on a contingent-fee basis. The client argued that the agreement, prepared on Greenberg Peden law firm letterhead and signed by Swonke on the firm's behalf, was a contract with the firm rather than Swonke personally. Swonke contended that the agreement's use of personal pronouns and surrounding circumstances rendered it ambiguous, requiring jury resolution as to whether it bound him individually. The Supreme Court of Texas held that the agreement was unambiguous and constituted a contract with the firm, reversing the court of appeals. The court reasoned that the document's plain terms on firm letterhead controlled and that extrinsic evidence could not override the reasonable client's understanding of those terms.
The case involved two newspapers requesting travel vouchers from the Texas Department of Public Safety related to Governor Rick Perry's security detail under the Public Information Act. DPS sought to withhold the documents, arguing they were confidential under common law privacy to prevent substantial threats of physical harm, but the trial court and court of appeals ordered full disclosure. The Supreme Court of Texas held that common law privacy protections extend beyond highly intimate facts to information that would substantially threaten physical harm. It reversed the lower courts' judgments and remanded for further proceedings to apply this standard. The Court noted legislative developments but addressed the vouchers under existing law.
The case involved the City of Dallas seizing hundreds of vehicles from VSC, a licensed vehicle storage facility, on grounds that they appeared stolen, after which VSC sued alleging an unconstitutional taking of its storage liens without just compensation. VSC had not pursued the statutory process under Chapter 47 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows interested parties to petition a court for a hearing to determine possession rights and recover property or proceeds. The Supreme Court of Texas held that the availability of this statutory remedy bars a takings claim, reversing the court of appeals and dismissing the suit. The core reasoning was that the Legislature provided an adequate mechanism for asserting interests in seized property, making resort to constitutional takings claims unnecessary when that process is available.
This case involved Texas voters and advocacy groups challenging the certification and use of paperless direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting machines, such as the eSlate, on grounds that they failed to produce contemporaneous paper records of individual votes and thus violated state constitutional requirements for ballot secrecy and accurate recording. The Texas Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue most claims because they alleged only generalized grievances about the lawfulness of government acts rather than particularized, concrete injuries, and that their remaining claims failed on the merits. The court reasoned that the Secretary of State had followed all statutory certification, testing, and security procedures for the machines, which had no explicit legal requirement for paper trails despite prior unsuccessful legislative efforts to impose one. It therefore reversed the court of appeals and rendered judgment dismissing the case entirely.
In this mandamus proceeding, a car dealership sued its insurer for breach of contract and other claims after receiving partial payments on a hail damage claim and then facing denial of further coverage; the insurer responded by invoking the policy's appraisal clause to resolve the amount of loss. The trial court denied the insurer's motion to compel appraisal, concluding that the insurer had waived the clause by failing to demand it before suit was filed. The Texas Supreme Court held that waiver of an appraisal clause requires either intentional relinquishment of a known right or conduct inconsistent with claiming the right, plus a showing of prejudice, and that mere delay in demanding appraisal does not suffice. The Court reasoned that such clauses are generally enforceable to provide an efficient alternative to litigation and granted conditional mandamus relief directing the trial court to compel the appraisal.
Larry Roccaforte sued Jefferson County alleging that his termination as chief deputy constable violated rights under the Texas Constitution. The county moved to dismiss on the ground that Roccaforte failed to give the required statutory notice under Local Government Code section 89.0041 because he used personal service rather than registered or certified mail. The trial court granted the plea to the jurisdiction, but the Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute does not mandate dismissal when the county judge and attorney receive timely actual notice that allows them to answer and defend the suit. The court reasoned that the purpose of the notice provision is satisfied by actual receipt, so the case should proceed on the merits rather than be dismissed for the manner of delivery.
