Phil Johnson

The case concerned whether the City of Lubbock was required under sections 143.038 and 143.041 of the Texas Local Government Code to pay seniority pay increments to firefighters temporarily assigned to higher job classifications in addition to the base pay for those classifications. The trial court denied the city's jurisdictional challenges, ruled that the city had violated the statute, and ordered back pay and injunctive relief. The appellate court reversed, holding that the city had properly compensated the firefighters because seniority pay is determined by permanent classification steps and the city was not obligated to include it during temporary assignments. The court further reasoned that the city's voluntarily adopted step-based pay system did not violate the code and that its method of calculating such pay was not subject to judicial review.

labor & employment

In Harris v. Archer, partners Sterquell, Harris, and Archer formed a limited liability partnership through their profit-sharing trusts to purchase an airport building in Amarillo. After the partners executed settlement agreements transferring Sterquell and Harris's interests to Archer, Archer sold the building for a substantial profit without disclosing prior negotiations for the sale. Sterquell and Harris sued Archer for fraud. Following a jury trial, the trial court entered judgment for Sterquell awarding actual and exemplary damages but a take-nothing judgment for Harris; on appeal, the court overruled the motion for rehearing, conditionally affirmed the judgment as to Sterquell, reversed the take-nothing judgment as to Harris, and conditionally granted judgment in Harris's favor based on jury findings concerning the partnership agreement, transfers, and disclosure obligations.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

In Archer v. Warren, Dr. Emily Archer, a gynecologist, was sued for medical negligence after performing surgery on patient Anita Warren to repair stress urinary incontinence, a cystourethrocele, and a rectocele; the surgery relieved the incontinence but allegedly caused permanent nerve damage and leg pain. The plaintiffs alleged that Dr. Archer negligently failed to offer non-surgical Kegel’s exercises as an initial option, that Warren would have chosen and succeeded with them, and that this omission proximately caused the need for surgery and resulting injury. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment for the plaintiffs and rendered a take-nothing judgment, concluding that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove to a reasonable medical probability that Kegel’s exercises would have corrected the condition enough to avoid surgery.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Sunnyside Feedyard, L.C. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Sunnyside sold a feedyard operation including real property to Wacross, which financed part of the purchase price through a loan from Metropolitan secured by a deed of trust, vendor's lien, and related documents executed at closing. Sunnyside later claimed an implied equitable purchase-money lien on the property superior to Metropolitan's lien, alleging issues with the closing agent's handling of funds and documents. The trial court granted Metropolitan's no-evidence motion for summary judgment and declared its lien first in priority. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Sunnyside failed to present evidence raising a fact issue that Metropolitan acted inequitably toward Sunnyside so as to permit equitable subordination of its lien, particularly in light of the warranty deed's recitals acknowledging full payment of the Metropolitan funds and no retained liens.

property

The case involved Holly West's appeal from a trial court order terminating her parental rights to her minor son T.W. The Court of Appeals of Texas dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was filed more than 20 days after the termination order was signed. Appeals from termination orders are accelerated under the Texas Family Code, requiring the notice to be filed within 20 days, and post-trial motions do not extend this deadline. The court reasoned that it lacked authority to enlarge the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case, even though the appellant argued lack of prejudice and discretion under the rules.

family lawprocedure

In Ware v. Miller, a former Potter County constable sued the county, its judge, and commissioners after they eliminated his salary and benefits during his 1999-2000 term, seeking a declaration that the salary was unreasonable, a writ of mandamus to set a reasonable salary, damages for the shortfall, and related relief. The trial court denied the defendants' pleas to the jurisdiction and summary judgment motions, granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff, and issued mandamus. On interlocutory appeal, the court held that the plaintiff lacked standing for damages claims after his term ended, that the commissioners enjoyed legislative immunity for salary-setting decisions, and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the damages and mandamus requests; it reversed those rulings, rendered judgment for the defendants on those claims, and remanded only the declaratory relief portion for further proceedings.

procedurelabor & employment

In this mandamus proceeding, relator Dale McCormick challenged a Texas trial court's denial of his plea to the jurisdiction in a suit to modify the parent-child relationship filed by the child's mother, Sharlet Wilks. The parties were divorced in Texas in 1995, and after temporary and final orders granting McCormick custody, he and the child moved from Texas to New Mexico and then to Kansas. McCormick argued that Texas had lost exclusive continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA because the child had lived in Kansas for nearly six months and substantial evidence concerning the child's care was now located there. The court of appeals denied mandamus relief, holding that the trial court did not err in retaining jurisdiction because the child retained a significant connection with Texas and substantial evidence remained available in the state, as the mother and her family still resided there, the child had visited Texas, and relevant events occurred near the Texas-New Mexico border.

family law

This case involved appellant Harry Lemaire's suit against Don Davis, Golden Gate, Inc., various lawyers and law firms, and others for damages arising from the sale of his interest in a limited partnership that owned real estate in Houston, with claims including legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and conversion. The trial court entered a take-nothing judgment after a jury found that Lemaire had released the defendants from the claims, that no attorney-client relationship existed between Lemaire and certain lawyer defendants, and that Lemaire had agreed to indemnify Davis. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the jury charge was not erroneous, that no privity or attorney-client relationship supported additional claims, and that there was no unjust enrichment or other basis to impose a constructive trust on funds disbursed by one set of defendants. The core reasoning centered on the jury's findings regarding releases and relationships, along with the lack of evidence supporting equitable relief.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liabilityprocedure

In Wood v. Dawkins, county judge Ted Wood sued Pattilou Dawkins for libel over a letter to the editor that criticized Randall County officials' handling of a jail construction bond issue and a proposed courthouse renovation, referring to the "shifty judge" and "subterfuge." The trial court granted Dawkins's traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment on grounds including truth, opinion, and lack of malice. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the challenged statements were either substantially true based on undisputed facts, protected expressions of opinion, or made without actual malice, and that Wood, as a public official, had not produced evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on the element of malice.

free speechproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a dispute over a 1956 surface lease of a five-acre tract in Gray County, Texas, originally granted to Phillips Petroleum (later assigned to GPM) for use in connection with a gas-booster station and related facilities. Haley, who acquired the land in 1986, sued GPM for trespass and breach after GPM built a radio repeater tower on the premises, arguing that the lease created only a tenancy at will that Haley had terminated and that the tower exceeded the lease's scope. GPM sought a declaratory judgment that the lease remained in force. The trial court granted GPM partial summary judgment confirming that the lease unambiguously allowed perpetual annual renewals by payment of $250 rent and was not terminable at will, then, after a jury found the tower did not breach the lease, entered judgment that Haley take nothing and declared the lease valid and the tower authorized. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the lease's plain terms permitted indefinite extension and that the jury's finding established compliance with the permitted uses for gas pipeline operations.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Joe Dean Trostle suing his stepmother Inez Trostle, individually and in her capacities as executrix and trustee, for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment over his claimed exclusion from proceeds of a wrongful death settlement related to his father's death. The trial court granted Inez's motion for summary judgment on traditional and no-evidence grounds, and the appellate court affirmed, resulting in a take-nothing judgment. The court reasoned that the underlying wrongful death judgment awarded damages solely to Inez and another son in their individual capacities with no recovery for the estate or trusts, that no evidence supported a survival claim on behalf of the estate, and that the appellant therefore suffered no damages as a beneficiary. Procedural challenges regarding discovery timing and limitations were also rejected as not affecting the merits.

family lawpropertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a mother's lawsuit against the City of Lubbock seeking damages for the drowning death of her son at a city-owned swimming pool, which the trial court dismissed after granting the city's plea to the jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the notice of appeal was untimely filed more than 30 days after the judgment. The core reasoning was that a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law did not extend the deadline to 90 days because the dismissal was granted as a matter of law on the pleadings and undisputed facts without an evidentiary hearing or disputed factual issues requiring resolution.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a Minnesota law firm (VPR) appealing the denial of its special appearance challenging personal jurisdiction in a Texas court suit brought by former partner French, who alleged tortious interference with contract and conspiracy related to fee disputes from class action settlements. The court affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding that VPR had waived any objection to personal jurisdiction. The core reasoning was that VPR filed general answers in both federal and state court without making a special appearance, which under Texas rules constitutes a general appearance and waives jurisdictional challenges; additionally, having already appeared, VPR did not require formal service for the cross-claims.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Tracy Cook-Pizzi, an ICU nurse, and her husband suing chemical suppliers Van Waters & Rogers, Degussa, and Du Pont after she was injured by fumes generated when hydrogen peroxide was poured into a clogged hospital sink drain. The plaintiffs alleged negligence, products liability, breach of warranty for a particular purpose, and violations of the DTPA based on claims of inadequate material safety data sheets and failure to warn about dangers when using the chemical as a drain cleaner. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the evidence did not raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the plaintiffs' reliance on the defendants to select or recommend hydrogen peroxide for that use, as the decision stemmed from a hospital consultant's recommendation instead.

torts & liability

This case involved appellant Contreras, a juvenile, who was charged with and convicted of murdering Neal Winegar, her mother's live-in partner, by stabbing him in the heart while he slept. After the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed an earlier appellate decision and remanded the case, the court reviewed multiple issues including the waiver of juvenile jurisdiction and transfer to adult court, the admissibility of the appellant's confession obtained after juvenile warnings, and the admission of autopsy photographs over objections. The court overruled all issues, finding no error in the transfer process, that the confession complied with statutory requirements for juveniles, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs because their probative value was not substantially outweighed by any prejudicial effect. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved appellant Ollie Gray Champion, who pled guilty to two charges of aggravated sexual assault and was sentenced to 85 years confinement plus a fine. He appealed, asserting that he was denied counsel during the time to file and present a motion for new trial, which he filed pro se along with a notice of appeal and indigency request, and which raised an ineffective assistance claim. The court determined that the facts rebutted the presumption of continued representation by trial counsel, as no counsel was appointed until after the deadline and the motion was never presented or heard. It held that this violated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a critical stage and caused harm by preventing a record for review. The appeal was therefore abated and remanded to allow the motion for new trial to proceed with appointed counsel.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved K.D.C., who was detained and subjected to proceedings for temporary inpatient mental health services and administration of psychoactive medication under Texas Health and Safety Code provisions. The trial court ordered her commitment for up to 90 days and authorized medication based on findings of mental illness and related risks. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Texas reversed both orders, determining that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the required statutory findings of likelihood of harm, severe distress, or functional deterioration, as there was no clear and convincing evidence of overt acts or a continuing pattern of behavior. Consequently, the order for medication was also invalid without a valid commitment order.

healthcareprocedure

This case involved competing lawsuits filed by Pasadena Independent School District (PISD) and Lubbock Independent School District (LISD) against the Texas Academic Decathlon Association (TADA) over which school’s team won a state competition and should advance to nationals. PISD obtained a temporary injunction in Harris County court ordering retesting, while LISD later obtained orders in Lubbock County court preventing decertification of its team or retesting; PISD then sought to abate the Lubbock action on grounds that Harris County had dominant jurisdiction. The Lubbock court denied the plea in abatement and granted injunctive relief to LISD, and PISD petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel rescission of those orders. The Court of Appeals denied mandamus, holding that the Lubbock court did not abuse its discretion because it could properly find PISD estopped from asserting dominant jurisdiction due to its failure to join LISD parties and the untimely nature of its actions, with factual determinations entitled to deference absent a complete record showing only one possible outcome.

procedure

The case involved the Ehlers challenging the enforceability of deed restrictions that prohibited alcohol sales on their property, which was adjacent to an area where such sales were permitted. The trial court upheld the restrictions, and the appellate court affirmed this decision. The court reasoned that the restrictions constituted a valid covenant running with the land, as they met the necessary requirements including touching and concerning the land and providing notice, and did not improperly restrain trade under antitrust principles applicable to real property covenants.

property

This case arose from a 1995 car accident in which Kelly Green sued Estella Vidlak for personal injuries; after the trial court sustained special exceptions, Green filed an amended petition that omitted Vidlak as a defendant and named only a deceased non-party. The trial court ruled that the amendment operated as a non-suit under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 65, dismissing the claims against Vidlak without prejudice but stating that the statute of limitations barred refiling. On appeal, the court held that an amended pleading omitting a defendant constitutes a voluntary dismissal without prejudice even when court-ordered, following precedents such as Webb v. Jorns, and that the trial court erred by adding the limitations bar to refiling; it therefore reversed and rendered judgment omitting that portion while affirming the dismissal without prejudice.

proceduretorts & liability