Most Recent Per Curiam Opinions In the Matter of Eugene X. Mercier, No. 06-1008 (Tex. Dec. 21, 2007)(per curiam)(ethics, attorney discipline, suspension, disbarment) Lasalle Bank Nat'l Assn. v. White, No. 06-1016 (Tex. Dec. 21, 2007)(per curiam)(real estate law, agricultural homestead, home-equity loan, lien validity) Knapp Med. Ctr. v. De La Garza II, No. 06-0575 (Tex. Dec. 14, 2007)(supplemental per curiam opinion on rehearing) (Rule 11 agreement must be in writing and operates as a statute of frauds, claim barred) Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Griesing, No. 04-0902 (Tex. Dec. 14, 2007)(per curiam jurisdictional dismissal) (interlocutory appeal, no conflict in the court of appeals below, no conflicts jurisdiction in the supreme court) Allstate Ins. Co. v. Fleming, No. 05-0645 (Tex. Dec. 14, 2007)(per curiam)(petition for review interlocutory appeal dismissed for lack of conflicts jurisdiction; no dissent in the court below) Chambers v. John M. O'Quinn, No. 06-1073 (Tex. Dec. 14, 2007)(per curiam) (motion to compel arbitration, court of appeals erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction to review order compelling arbitration, legal malpractice) Best Buy Co. v. Barrera, No. 07-0028 (Tex. Nov. 30, 2007)(per curiam)(consumer law, class de-certified) In re McKee, MD, No. 06-0055 (Tex. Nov. 30, 2007)(per curiam)(ethics law, recusal of judge, administrative order) Springer v. Springer, No. 06-0382 (Tex. Nov. 2, 2007)(per curiam)(appellate time table, deadlines for appeal) Sprowl v. Payne, No. 06-0533 (Tex. Nov. 2, 2007)(per curiam)(appellate procedure, payment for record, indigence) Knapp Medical Center v. De La Garza, No 06-0575 (Tex. Nov. 06-0575) (per curiam)(alleged Rule 11 agreement not enforceable because of noncompliance with requirements) Bossier Chrysler-Dodge II, Inc. v. Rauschenberg, No. 06-0874 (Tex. Nov. 2, 2007)(per curiam)(should attorney's fees issue be remanded? In Re U.S. Home Corp, Lennar Corp et al, No. 03-1080 (Tex. Oct. 12, 2007)(per curiam)(arbitration, homeowner builder, residential construction defect) In Re Sci Texas Funeral Services, Inc. No. 06-0385 (Tex. Oct. 12, 2007)(per curiam)(discovery sanctions, decertification) BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. v. North Alamo Water Supply Corp., No. 06-0602 (Tex, Oct. 12, 2007)(per curiam)(contract law, breach of settlement agreement, excuse) In re Merrill Lynch Trust Co., No. 03-1059 (Tex. Aug 31, 2007)(per curiam)(arbitration mandamus, financial services) Ford v. Exxon Mobil Chemical Co., No. 06-0293 (Tex. Aug. 31, 2007)(per curiam)(real estate fraud, limitations) Proulx v. Wells, No. 06-0258 (Tex. Aug 31, 2007)(per curiam)(service of citation, due diligence) In re Moore, No. 06-0544 (Tex. Aug. 31, 2007)(per curiam)(SAPCR, sanctions) Stonebridge Life Ins. Co. v. Pitts, No. 06-0655 (Tex. Aug 31, 2007)(per curiam)(class action, insurance telemarketing) In Re H&R Block No. 04-0061 (Tex. Aug. 24, 2007)(per curiam)(arbitration mandamus) In re Kaplan Higher Educ. Corp., No. 06-0072 (Tex. Aug. 24, 2007)(per curiam)(arbitration mandamus) Fort Worth ISD v. Service Employment Redevelopment, No. 05-0427 (Tex. Aug. 24, 2007)(per curiam) (breach of contract claim immunity, Tooke) Elledge v. Friberg-Cooper Water Supply Corp., No. 06-0677 (Tex. Aug. 24, 2007)(per curiam)(statute of limitations for unjust enrichment) Ramos v. Richardson, No. 06-0336 (Tex. Jun. 29, 2007)(per curiam)(prisoner suit, timeliness of notice of appeal, mailbox rule) Wilz v. Flournoy, No. 06-0913 (Tex. Jun. 29, 2007)(per curiam)(constructive trust, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, invocation of fifth amendment privilege in civil proceeding) Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Mayes, No. 04-0993 (Tex. Jun 15, 2007)(per curiam)(premises liability) Kallam, M.D. v. Boyd, No. 05-0027 (Tex. Jun. 15, 2007)(per curiam)(medical malpractice, HCLC) Brinson Ford, Inc. v. Alger, No. 05-0722 (Tex. Jun. 15, 2007)(per curiam)(premises liability) In Re Allstate County Mutual Ins. Co., No. 06-0878 (Tex. Jun. 15, 2007)(per curiam)(discovery limitations) Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd. v. McShane, No. 05-1069 (Tex. Jun. 8, 2007)(per curiam) Hubicki v. Festina, a Liechtenstein Foundation, No. 05-0357 (Tex. Jun. 1, 2007)(per curiam)(default judgment, defective service) City of Arlington v. Matthews, No. 06-0251 (Tex. Jun. 1, 2007)(per curiam)(Tooke) City of Pasadena v. Kinsel Industries, No. 06-0353 (Tex. Jun. 1, 2007)(per curiam)(Tooke) City of Elsa v. M.A.L., No. 06-0516 (Tex. Jun. 1, 2007)(per curiam) Tellez v. City of Socorro, No. 05-0629 (Tex. Jun. 1, 2007)(per curiam)(zoning, jurisdiction) Dallas Fire Fighters Association v. City of Dallas, No. 04-0821 (Tex. Jun. 1, 2007)(per curiam)(Tooke) Abilene Housing Authority v. Gene Duke Builders, No. 05-0631 (Tex. Jun. 1, 2007)(per curiam)(Tooke) State of Texas v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland, No. 04-0180 (Tex. May 4, 2007)(per curiam) (sovereign immunity to counterclaims waived by bringing suit) U.S. v. Boateng, No. 05-0752 (Tex. Apr. 20, 2007)(per curiam)(bill of review, sovereign immunity) City of San Antonio v. Ytuarte, No. 05-0991 (Tex. May 4, 2007)(per curiam)(official immunity, good faith) IRA Resources, Inc. v. Griego, No. 05-0469 (Tex. Apr. 20, 2007)(per curiam)(special appearance) Young v. Qualls, No. 05-1091 (Tex. May 4, 2007)(per curiam)(attorneys' fees) South Texas Water Authority v. Lomas, No. 05-0855 (Tex. Apr. 27, 2007)(per curiam)(standing) Holmes v. Kent, No. 04-0729 (Tex. Apr. 20, 2007)(per curiam)(TRS benefits dispute) Baylor Univ. v. Sonnichsen, No. 04-0851 (Tex. Apr. 20, 2007)(per curiam)(employment dispute) In Re RLS Legal Solutions, LLC., No. 05-0290 (Tex. Apr. 20, 2007)(per curiam)(arbitration mandamus) Attorney Disqualfied - Mandamus Relief Warranted In Re Michael Angelo Basco, No. 05-0771 (Tex. Apr. 20, 2007)(per curiam)(disqualification of counsel, mandamus granted) Contractual alimony cannot be enforced by putting ex-husband in jail In Re Alvin Green, No. 06-0496 (Tex. Apr. 20, 2007)(per curiam)(contractual alimony not enforceable by contempt, habeas corpus granted) Court Grants Mandamus to Reverse Award of Visitation to Grandparent in Violation of Troxel In Re Ricky Derzapf, No. 06-0669 (Tex. Mar. 23, 2007)(per curiam) (family law, SAPCR, grandparent suit, parent prevails over grandparent custody claim, statutory criteria for grandparent access not satisfied, mandamus relief granted) High Court Rules that ward's death did not moot appeal by former guarding who was removed for cause Zipp v. Alisa Wuemling, No. 05-0731 (Tex. Mar. 9, 2007)(per curiam) (guardianship, mootness issue, predecessor guardian, successor guardian of the person, the estate) Some of Firefighters' waiver-of-immunity arguments fail, but not all - Court remands pay dispute City of Dallas v. Saucedo-Falls, et al.; No. 05-0973 (Tex. Mar. 9, 2007)(per curiam) (sovereign immunity; fire fighters given chance to argue waiver by conduct or statute on remand) City of Sweetwater, Texas v. Waddell, et al: No. 05-1033 (Tex. Mar. 9, 2007)(per curiam)(“sue and be sued” provision in charter does not waive city’s immunity under Tooke v. Mexia; firefighters given chance of argue new limited statutory immunity waiver on remand). Also see other --> Texas firefighter cases Court grants mandamus relief to order case transferred to county where venue is mandatory In Re Texas Department of Transportation (TxDoT), No. 06-0289 (Tex. Mar. 9, 2007)(per curiam) (mandamus granted to enforce mandatory venue provision of TTCA) In Re Gillespie County, No. 06-00052 (Tex. Mar. 9, 2007)(per curiam)(mandamus granted to enforce mandatory venue under TTCA) consolidated with In Re Texas Department of Transportation, No. 06-0289 (Tex. Mar. 9, 2007) Was the judgment final and the notice of appeal timely filed? - It's not always clear Jane Doe v. Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church, No. 06-0686 (Tex. Mar. 9, 2007)(per curiam) (severance, finality of judgement, order, appellate deadlines, timeliness of notice of appeal, NoA) Mandamus granted to vacate order for sale of property based on void judgment In Re Discount Rental, Inc., No. 05-0249 (Tex. Mar. 2, 2007)(per curiam) Legal terms: restricted appeal, void judgment b/c of defective service, lack of authority to order sale, failure to supersede judgment, enforcement of judgment, writ of execution, return of the property. Supreme Court declines invitation to allow for two trials on attorneys fees when one will do Varner v. Cardenas, No. 06-0212 (Tex. Mar. 2, 2007)(per curiam) Also see Tony Gullo Motors v. Chapa, No. 04-0961 (Tex. Dec. 22, 2006)(Justice Brister)(party must segregate recoverable from unrecoverable attorney's fees in all cases) Case type: suit on note, real estate law, title defect, suing title insurance company and its agent Key legal terms: attorney fee segregation, other claims, claims against third parties, counterclaims, breach of contract, mutual mistake, reformation of deed, shortfall in acreage No prejudgment interest on entire balance of note sued on in the absence of proof of date of acceleration Court of Appeals erred in granting more relief than sought by appellant Ontiveros v. Flores, No. 06-0607 (Tex. Mar. 2, 2007)(per curiam) Legal terms: appellate procedure, failure to preserve error, scope of relief on appeal, error preservation on appeal, waiver of error High Court reverses court of appeal's dismissal of pro se in former pauperis appeal because appellant had timely filed affidavit of indigence Hood v. Wal-Mart, No. 05-0902 (Tex. Feb. 23, 2007)(per curiam) Terms: pro se, IFP, affidavit of indigence, no contest re: status, DWOP on appeal Following: Higgins v. Randall County Sheriff's Office, 193 S.W.3d 898 (Tex. 2006) Supreme Court grants mandamus relief to order arbitration sought by bank against customer; rejects argument that bank waived right to arbitrate by invoking judicial process In re Bank One, No. 06-0093 (Tex. Feb 23, 2007)(per curiam) Terms: arbitration case law, arbitration clause, Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), scope of arbitration agreement, presumption against waiver of right to arbitrate Also see: In re Vesta Ins. Group, Inc., 192 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. 2006) Court rejects argument that UDJA claim provided basis for jurisdiction in fire fighters' suit against city where money damages were only ultimate plausible remedy; First Court of Appeals had found that city was not immune to suit and that declaratory judgment claim was viable The City of Houston v. Williams, No. 06-0093 (Tex. Feb. 23, 2007)(per curiam) Terms: sovereign immunity, cities, waiver, interlocutory appeal, ILA, conflicts jurisdiction, UDJA, declaratory relief, statutory waiver Following Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. 2006) and companion cases Court Holds that city’s decision to close private business driveway was proper exercise of the City’s police power City of San Antonio v. TPLP Office Park Properties, No. 04-1130 (Tex. Feb. 9, 2007)(per curiam). Terms: takings claim, regulatory taking, land use, cities, zoning ordinance, traffic control, police power Holding: The court of appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s declaration that closure of vehicular access via the driveway at issue would not be a valid exercise of the City’s police power, that it would constitute a compensable taking, and that the City is estopped from closing the driveway. Court vacates default judgment challenged in restricted appeal because of defect in service of citation Wachovia Bank v. Gilliam, No. 05-0903 (Tex. Feb. 9, 2007)(per curiam) Terms: restricted appeal, default judgment, sufficiency of service of process on out-of-state defendant. Statute requires the Secretary to forward service to a foreign corporation’s “principal office.” See Tex. Bus. Corp. Act art. 8.10(B). Nothing in the record shows 920 King Street was Wachovia’s principal office either. Holding and decision: When a default judgment is challenged by restricted appeal, there are no presumptions in favor of valid service. See Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co. v. Drewery Const. Co., 186 S.W.3d 571, 573 (Tex. 2006). In this case, substituted service was based on statutes requiring papers to be forwarded to the defendant’s “home office” or “principal office,” but nothing in the record shows they were. As the court of appeals erred by presuming otherwise, we reverse. Supreme Court renders take-nothing judgment in favor of fast food chain in worker's negligence suit against employer based on injuries sustained at work Jack in the Box, Inc. v. Skiles, No. 05-0911 (Tex. Feb 9, 2007(per curiam) Terms: workplace safety, workplace injury, nonsubscriber, negligence, employer liability Jack in the Box argues there is no evidence it owed and breached a duty to warn Skiles of an obviously dangerous condition. The Supreme Court agreed and, because the holding on that issue was dispositive of the case, declined to address the other issues.[ Holding: The dangers associated with the use of a ladder to climb over a lift gate are common and obvious to anyone. Following our holding in Elwood, which we issued after the court of appeals’ opinion in this case, we conclude Jack in the Box owed no duty to warn Skiles of the danger posed by his intended use of the ladder. We reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and render a take-nothing judgment in favor of Jack in the Box. houston-opinions.com |
| 2007 Texas Supreme Court Per Curiam Opinions (Tex. 2007) |
| No warranties for accuracy of summaries or court's holdings. Please report any errors or omissions to the webmaster at wolfgang@houston-opinions.com houston-opinons.com |