Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.
Decision levers
AI-measured from their own opinions — each lever cites its cases
Willing to revisit precedentStrong stare decisis
Opinions repeatedly state that intermediate courts must follow supreme court precedent without deviation, as in [1] citing Lubbock Cty. v. Trammel’s Lubbock Bail Bonds. City of Pasadena v. Environmenta… ↗
Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
In [1], court rejects city's sovereign immunity plea under 'sue and be sued' language, showing limited skepticism toward expansive government immunity claims. City of Pasadena v. Environmenta… ↗
This case arose from Robert Twist's multiple lawsuits against McAllen National Bank and related parties over an allegedly improper transfer of funds from his account and events surrounding a prior settlement. After the second lawsuit was abated during an appeal of the first and then dismissed for want of prosecution, Twist filed several motions to reinstate that the trial court rejected. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the motions to reinstate contained fatally defective verifications that did not comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a because they were not based on the attorney's personal knowledge rather than information and belief, and thus did not extend the appellate deadlines.
This case involves a condominium association suing an architect and architectural firm for breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of agency, and breach of fiduciary duty arising from alleged failures in investigating building conditions and overseeing a renovation project. After the suit was filed, the plaintiff submitted certificates of merit from a licensed architect to comply with Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 150.002, but the defendants moved to dismiss arguing the affidavits failed to show the expert was practicing in the same area of architecture. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, but on interlocutory appeal the court reversed and remanded, concluding the expert's affidavits did not meet the statutory same-area requirement and the defendants had not waived their dismissal rights through discovery.
This case arose from Robert Twist's lawsuit against McAllen National Bank after his ex-wife transferred settlement funds from a joint account, followed by divorce and bankruptcy proceedings. The trial court enforced a $75,000 settlement agreement that Twist had initially placed on the record but later attempted to revoke, dismissing his claims with prejudice in 2001 and again in 2002. Twist filed an untimely appeal in 2004, which was dismissed, and then pursued a consolidated appeal and mandamus proceeding in the appellate court. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of timeliness and failure to pay fees, denied the mandamus petition, and imposed sanctions on Twist's counsel under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.11, finding misrepresentations about the record, baseless arguments, and a pattern of frivolous filings related to the same trial court cause.
In this case, former AutoZone employee Salvador Reyes sued his employer for age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act after being terminated at age 62, which AutoZone attributed to violations of its sexual harassment policy. A jury found in Reyes's favor and awarded substantial damages including back pay, compensatory damages, and exemplary damages, but the trial court applied statutory caps and reduced the total award. On appeal, the court held that legally sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that age was a motivating factor in the discharge, leading it to affirm the liability determination while modifying the judgment to further reduce the back pay award and eliminate punitive damages.
The case involved an insurance dispute over coverage for a building that collapsed in 2002, shortly after the owner purchased a one-year policy from the insurers. The insurers filed for declaratory judgment that the policy did not cover the loss, and the owner counterclaimed for breach of contract and related violations. The trial court determined that policy terms were ambiguous, submitted coverage questions to a jury, and entered judgment for the owner based on the jury's findings of coverage and damages. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, concluding that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the fortuity doctrine where disputed evidence existed about the owner's prior knowledge of the building's condition, and that this error probably led to an improper verdict.
This case involved residents of a city-owned mobile home park suing the City of Weslaco and related economic development entities over plans to transfer the property to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for use as a birding center, which the plaintiffs alleged would force them from their homes. The plaintiffs brought claims including fraud, breach of contract, violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and violations of the Property Code, seeking damages and injunctive relief to prevent the transfer without protecting their residency rights. The defendants filed pleas to the jurisdiction arguing lack of ripeness and governmental immunity. The court held that the activities at issue were governmental functions shielded by immunity, that no statutory waiver of immunity applied, and that the trial court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims. It reversed the trial court's denial of the pleas and rendered judgment dismissing the case.