The City of Plano sued Comcast Cable of Plano, Inc. for breach of a 1983 franchise agreement, seeking 5% fees on revenues from cable modem internet services provided over the city's cable system. Comcast moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Federal Communications Act preempted the claim under 47 U.S.C. §§ 542(b) and 556(c), based on an FCC ruling that cable modem service is not a cable service subject to local franchise fees. The trial court denied the motion, but on interlocutory appeal the court reversed, holding that federal law preempts the contractual fee obligation regardless of the agreement's terms. The court rendered judgment for Comcast on the breach-of-agreement count and remanded the remaining claims.
This case concerned disputes between PAH Co., a fractional owner of a Learjet 31A, and Bombardier Aerospace Corporation over payments due under aircraft management and purchase agreements, including variable-rate flight fees, a check tendered under protest, declarations of default, and rights to repurchase the interest at a discount. The trial court granted a directed verdict against PAH on its breach claims, the jury found for BAC on its claims, and the court struck Peter Halmos's individual counterclaim. On appeal, the court reversed the directed verdict and a jury instruction regarding conditional tender, remanding those breach-of-contract issues for further proceedings, but affirmed the striking of the counterclaim and all other aspects of the judgment. The reasoning centered on errors in the directed verdict and instruction, while finding no abuse of discretion in the pretrial amendment ruling due to surprise and prejudice to BAC.
This case arose when Oncor Electric Delivery Company sought mandamus relief after a trial court orally ordered it to answer an interrogatory and produce documents covering every lawsuit it had been involved in during the prior five years. The appellate court conditionally granted the writ, directing the trial court to vacate its discovery order. The core reasoning was that mandamus is proper to correct a trial court's abuse of discretion in compelling discovery that is clearly irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, and the order here was overly broad as a matter of law because it contained no subject-matter limitations.
Mendy Welborn appealed the trial court's dismissal of her personal injury claims against American Medical Response of Texas and other defendants for want of prosecution and lack of due diligence. The underlying dispute arose from injuries Welborn sustained in an ambulance accident after a 2000 motorcycle collision involving Ricky Hart and Robert Arsenault, with Welborn's claims having been severed and transferred to Dallas County. After the Dallas court erroneously dismissed all claims in 2003 and later scheduled a show-cause hearing, it denied Welborn's motion for continuance and dismissed the case; Welborn then filed a verified motion to reinstate under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a(3) but received no hearing. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the rule requires the trial court to set and conduct a hearing on a timely verified reinstatement motion, and that failure to do so mandates reversal.
Rene Lowery sued the Holly Park Condominium Homeowners’ Association for wrongful foreclosure after the Association conducted a nonjudicial foreclosure on her condominium unit for unpaid assessments beginning in 2007. The trial court granted summary judgment to Lowery, declaring the foreclosure void and requiring judicial foreclosure under the terms of the condominium declaration and bylaws. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the Texas Uniform Condominium Act’s provisions permitting nonjudicial foreclosure do not apply because they would invalidate an existing provision in the pre-1994 declaration that requires judicial foreclosure to enforce assessment liens. The court reasoned that the statute expressly limits its application to avoid overriding such pre-existing contractual terms in the governing documents.
The case involved Thalia Lincoln's conviction for criminal mischief after a glass panel in her ex-partner's door broke during a visit to pick up their son. Lincoln appealed, arguing the trial court erred by convicting her without taking a plea, that evidence was insufficient to prove she acted intentionally or knowingly, and that she was sentenced without a separate punishment hearing. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the judgment's recital of a not-guilty plea and appellate presumptions of regularity controlled absent affirmative proof to the contrary, that the evidence supported an inference of intent based on the force required and circumstances, and that any right to a punishment hearing was waived by failure to object or request it. The opinion distinguished prior precedent and applied standards for legal sufficiency review.
In Perry v. Samuels, a patient and her husband sued a doctor for common-law fraud after a cosmetic surgery procedure led to complications and visible scarring, alleging misrepresentations about the necessity and outcomes of the surgery as well as falsified medical records. The doctor moved to dismiss the suit for failure to serve an expert report as required by Texas law for health care liability claims. The trial court denied the motion, but the appellate court reversed that order. The court reasoned that the fraud allegations were inseparable from the medical treatment provided and would require expert medical testimony to prove, making them health care liability claims subject to the expert-report requirement. Because no report was served within 120 days, the claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the case was remanded to determine the doctor's attorney's fees and costs.
The case involved a subcontractor, Larry F. Smith, Inc., suing property owners Private Mini Storage Realty, L.P. and related entities for unpaid amounts on concrete work performed at a storage facility, including contractually retained funds and a mechanic's lien claim after the general contractor failed to pay. Smith sought recovery under quantum meruit, Texas Property Code sections 53.083(b) and 53.084, and lien foreclosure. The trial court granted summary judgment to Smith on liability, held a bench trial on damages, and awarded approximately $80,000 in damages plus attorney's fees. The appeals court affirmed, holding that Smith established liability as a matter of law under the statutory retainage and notice provisions, the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the damages award despite conflicting testimony on work quality and invoice amounts, and fees were properly awarded as a consequence.