Dori Contreras

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.

procedure

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.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

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.

procedure

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Ralph McAfee's appeal of his conviction for possession of cocaine, challenging the admission of evidence obtained during a traffic stop and the sufficiency of corroboration for accomplice and informant testimony. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, overruling all issues. The court reasoned that the traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion based on the officer's visual observation and pacing of the vehicle exceeding the speed limit, which did not require probable cause. It further held that evidence such as the defendant's presence with the accomplice and passenger, combined with other suspicious circumstances, provided sufficient corroboration tending to connect McAfee to the offense under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure articles 38.14 and 38.141.

criminal lawprocedure

In this Texas appellate case, families of four motorists killed in a head-on collision with a Nabors Drilling employee sued the employer and the employee's estate for negligence, gross negligence, and wrongful death after the worker crossed the median while driving home fatigued from a twelve-hour shift. A jury found for the plaintiffs and awarded damages, but the trial court granted the defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that Nabors owed a legal duty because it had created a foreseeable risk by requiring the long shift and that more than a scintilla of evidence supported the jury's findings on duty, breach, causation, and damages. The court also addressed the defendants' alternative requests for a new trial on factual sufficiency and jury charge issues.

torts & liabilityprocedurelabor & employment

The case involved a lawsuit by Michael Sevcik and Cathy Loth against Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. and its driver Samuel Alvarado for injuries sustained in a 1999 car accident on Interstate 10 caused by the driver's negligence in changing lanes. Following a jury trial that awarded over $3 million in damages, the defendants appealed, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of evidence supporting certain damage awards to Loth and the admission of evidence regarding Reliance Steel's annual sales of $1.9 billion. The court held that evidence was insufficient to support the full $40,000 in past medical expenses, as only $33,985.23 was proven with evidence of reasonableness and necessity, but found sufficient evidence for future medical expenses and other damages, and that the sales evidence did not likely cause an improper verdict. It modified the judgment to reduce the past medical award and affirmed the judgment as modified.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Castillo v. State, Felix Castillo Jr. was convicted of murder and attempted capital murder after a drive-by shooting that killed one victim and injured another; he was tried jointly with two co-defendants. On appeal, he raised five issues: that his convictions violated double jeopardy by punishing him twice for the same conduct, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, that the trial court failed to inquire into a conflict of interest from dual representation, that extraneous offense evidence was admitted without proper notice, and that the court erred by denying his requests for severance and a mistrial. The court held that the double jeopardy claim lacked merit under the Blockburger test and legislative intent, that other claims were either unpreserved, untimely, or unsupported by the record, and that no reversible error occurred. It therefore overruled all issues and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

The City of Pasadena appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity from a suit brought by Environmental Infrastructure Group. The appellate court affirmed the ruling, determining that the city's charter provision allowing it to 'sue and be sued,' combined with Texas Local Government Code section 51.075, constitutes a waiver of immunity from suit. This conclusion rested on Texas Supreme Court precedent such as Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Brownsville Navigation District, as well as decisions from Houston appellate courts interpreting the same statutory language. The court noted its obligation to follow binding authority from the Supreme Court and the local jurisdiction, even amid conflicting rulings elsewhere.

procedure

This case arose from a two-vehicle collision involving teenage drivers and passengers, in which plaintiff Beatrice Cifre was paralyzed; her parents sued the drivers Scott Pojar and Laura McCormick (and Pojar's mother) for negligence, with cross-claims among the defendants. The trial court allocated peremptory challenges unevenly among the parties, admitted evidence of marijuana use, awarded damages including for loss of past services, and noted a malice finding without exemplary damages. On appeal, the court held that the peremptory challenge allocation was not an abuse of discretion, marijuana evidence issues were not properly preserved, the malice finding was immaterial without an exemplary damages award, and the evidence was sufficient to support the malice finding but insufficient to support any award for loss of past services. Accordingly, it reversed the $200,000 past-services award and rendered judgment for zero on that element while affirming the judgment in all other respects.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case is a habeas corpus proceeding challenging a civil contempt order that led to the incarceration of judgment debtor Roger Gerdes for allegedly violating court injunctions by leasing property subject to asset-preservation orders in a post-judgment collection action. The trial court had held Gerdes in contempt for encumbering assets without complying with prior turnover orders and extended his confinement. The appellate court granted the writ, ordering Gerdes released, because the contempt proceeding violated due process: Gerdes, facing possible incarceration, requested counsel at the hearing but was forced to proceed without representation. Under Texas law, an adult facing imprisonment in a contempt matter is entitled to appointed counsel if requested, rendering the resulting order void.

procedurecivil rights

The McShanes sued Bay Area Healthcare Group and related entities for negligence during Deborah McShane's labor and delivery, claiming the hospital's nursing staff caused their daughter Maggie's severe brain damage, cerebral palsy, developmental disability, and mental retardation. A jury returned a 10-2 verdict for the defendants, leading the trial court to enter a take-nothing judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the plaintiffs' superseded pleadings naming two physicians as former defendants, an error that was reasonably calculated to and probably did cause an improper verdict in this close case.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over the scope of a mineral reservation in a 1946 deed conveying multiple lots of land in Hidalgo County, Texas. Plaintiff Paul Freeman claimed the reservation applied to all lots and entitled him to a one-third share of a one-half mineral interest, while Stephens Production Company and intervenors argued it was limited to Lot 288 and sought declaratory relief confirming their ownership of the mineral estate on the other lots. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants and intervenors, interpreting the deed to limit the reservation and rejecting the plaintiff's counterclaims, including one based on limitations. The appellate court reversed, holding that the deed was ambiguous because its language was reasonably susceptible to either interpretation under the four-corners rule, and remanded for a jury to determine the parties' intent; it also affirmed denial of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion on adverse possession due to insufficient evidence.

propertyprocedure

In Hahn v. Whiting Petroleum Corp., plaintiffs sued Keith Hahn and affiliated companies for breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, contract breaches, and related claims arising from oil well operations, obtaining a default judgment for over $1.6 million after Hahn failed to answer the suit. Hahn moved for a new trial, asserting that his attorney's undisclosed conflict of interest caused the default by failing to file an answer or notify him. The Texas Court of Appeals reversed the default judgment against Hahn and remanded for further proceedings, concluding that he satisfied the Craddock three-prong test because his non-appearance resulted from his attorney's mistake rather than intentional conduct or conscious indifference, he raised a meritorious defense, and a new trial would not prejudice the plaintiffs.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved a dispute between a condominium owners' association and unit owner Richard Daly over whether he could install a satellite dish on the roof or other parts of his unit, in violation of the association's declaration prohibiting antennas on common elements like roofs. After two jury trials, the trial court ruled against Daly on the roof placement, found he lacked exclusive control over the airspace above his patio, and declined to award attorney's fees to either party. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that federal regulations under 47 C.F.R. § 1.4000 did not entitle Daly to relief on the roof, that the jury findings supported the association's position, and that Daly was not a prevailing party under the Texas Condominium Act because he did not obtain the declaratory relief sought in his counterclaim.

propertyfederal power

The case involved Saratoga Medical Center suing Radiology Associates for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion of a trade secret, and antitrust violations after the radiology group obtained patient referral data during their contract and began competing by purchasing its own MRI machine. Radiology Associates counterclaimed that the antitrust claims were groundless and brought in bad faith. A jury found no fiduciary relationship existed, rejected the other claims, and the trial court entered a take-nothing judgment while denying fees on the antitrust counterclaim. On appeal, the court affirmed, concluding that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings on the absence of a confidential relationship and no misappropriation, and that the trial court did not err regarding the antitrust claims.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

Hank Altenburg, a temporary worker supplied by Unique Employment Services to Western Steel Company, sued Western for negligence after sustaining a foot injury while heating steel beams at Western's shop. Western raised the affirmative defense that Altenburg was its borrowed employee, which would bar the suit under the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. The jury found Western negligent, determined that Altenburg was not Western's borrowed employee, and awarded him $88,313.85 in damages. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, reasoning that Western bore the burden to prove borrowed servant status and failed to do so, as the evidence did not establish the requisite right to control or applicable workers' compensation coverage for the client company.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This products liability case arose after a six-year-old girl suffered severe burns when her brother ignited her dress with a Bic J-26 disposable lighter; her mother sued Bic on her behalf, alleging manufacturing and design defects. A jury awarded $3 million in actual damages and $2 million in exemplary damages after finding malice. On appeal, Bic challenged the sufficiency of the evidence on causation, defects, and malice; raised federal preemption; and contested evidentiary rulings, a spoliation instruction, and interest. The court held that the design-defect claim was not preempted by federal lighter standards, that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the design defect and malice findings, and that no reversible error occurred in the admission of expert testimony or the interest award; it therefore affirmed the judgment on the design-defect claim. The core reasoning was that the claim focused on excessive variance in child resistance among the lighters—rather than on standards higher than those set by federal regulation—and that safer alternative designs existed that met federal requirements and eliminated that variance.

torts & liabilityfederal power