Paul W. Green

The case concerned whether a class action could proceed against General Motors on behalf of Texas residents who bought or leased new 1997-2001 Chevrolet Malibus, based on claims that the vehicles had a brake-system defect causing pulsation that GM could not effectively repair, resulting in diminished value at the time of purchase; the plaintiffs asserted breach of implied and express warranties and, for a subclass, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The trial court certified the class and approved a trial plan focusing on common questions of defect, breach, and diminished value. On appeal, the court reversed the certification order and remanded the case. It held that the class failed to satisfy the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42 because individual issues—such as whether any particular vehicle actually manifested the defect, whether repairs were effective for specific owners, causation, and GM’s defenses like misuse or improper maintenance—would predominate over common questions, rendering class treatment inappropriate.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves Nancy Wolfram's efforts to enforce a 1988 California spousal support judgment against her ex-husband Herbert's assets in Texas after he stopped payments and later died. Nancy filed a petition in Texas probate court to domesticate the foreign judgment under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act and pursued claims under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act against Lou Ann Wolfram individually and as trustee of a revocable living trust, alleging improper transfers of assets. The trial court granted summary judgment to Lou Ann on grounds including the statute of limitations and lack of a debtor-creditor relationship. On rehearing, the appellate court vacated its prior reversal and held that Nancy failed to properly domesticate the judgment because she filed only an abstract rather than an authenticated copy of the judgment and sued the non-entity 'estate,' rendering the action invalid under the Uniform Act. The court reasoned that an abstract of judgment is not a reproduction of the original judgment's terms and that no legal entity existed to be sued as the estate.

family lawprocedureproperty

The case involved Retamco Operating, Inc. suing Paradigm Oil, Inc. and related entities for breach of contract and fraud over unpaid overriding royalties from oil and gas leases under a 1984 purchase agreement. After Paradigm repeatedly failed to respond to discovery requests and comply with court orders compelling responses and depositions, the trial court imposed death penalty sanctions, struck the answer, and entered a $1,600,000 default judgment. On appeal, the court affirmed the sanctions and default judgment on liability, concluding they were justified by the pattern of discovery abuse and that severance from other defendants was proper, but reversed the damages award because it lacked supporting evidence in the record before the judge who entered the judgment and remanded for a new hearing on the amount of damages.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

In City of Laredo v. Leal, the City and its police chief appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Lieutenant David Leal, who had been indefinitely suspended but had his suspension reduced to a temporary one by a hearing examiner. The court held that the hearing examiner possessed the jurisdiction and authority to modify the suspension from indefinite to a 644-day temporary suspension without pay. It further determined that the police chief was entitled to qualified immunity on Leal's substantive and procedural due process claims because his conduct was objectively reasonable given the notice and opportunities provided to Leal. Accordingly, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgments and rendered take-nothing judgments in favor of the City and the chief on the relevant claims.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

In this case, Josefina Mireles sued her former employers, Laredo Medical Group Corporation and Mercy Health System of Texas, under the narrow Sabine Pilot exception to Texas at-will employment, alleging she was fired solely for refusing to perform illegal acts related to billing and accounting practices. A jury found in her favor and awarded more than $1.5 million in damages. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, holding that Mireles failed to present legally sufficient evidence that her employers ordered her to perform an illegal act or that she refused to do so. The court noted that her allegations, if true, would instead support only a whistleblower claim, which is not recognized against private employers in Texas. The decision emphasized that the Sabine Pilot claim requires proof the discharge occurred for no reason other than the refusal to commit an illegal act.

labor & employment

In Ex Parte Gonzalez, the defendant pled nolo contendere to unlawfully carrying an illegal knife and later faced charges for unlawfully carrying a handgun on licensed premises, both arising from the same incident under Texas Penal Code section 46.02. She sought habeas relief, arguing the second prosecution violated double jeopardy protections under the U.S. and Texas Constitutions because the charges involved a single offense from one transaction. The trial court denied relief, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that section 46.02 is a possession-oriented statute where the allowable unit of prosecution is each distinct type of weapon, so carrying different weapons constitutes separate offenses permitting successive prosecutions. It further held that the Texas Constitution provides no greater double jeopardy protections than the federal Constitution in this context.

criminal lawprocedureguns