Wallace Jefferson was appointed to the Texas Supreme Court in 2001 and subsequently elected following contested primary and general election campaigns. In September 2004, Governor Rick Perry named Jefferson to succeed Thomas R. Phillips as Chief Justice. Jefferson is up for reelection this year. 2008 Judicial Election Campaign: Chief Justice Jefferson's term is drawing to an end. In his bid to retain the position he faces Challenger Jim Jordan aka James R. Jordan, who is seeking the position of chief justice as the Democratic Party's candidate. Jordan is a civil trial lawyer and currently serves as a district court judge in Dallas. See official web page of the 160th District Court. Although it lacks a realistic chance of winning, the Libertarian Party also has a challenger, Tom Oxford aka Thomas Edward Oxford, who previously ran against Jefferson in 2006 and garnered 23.6% of the vote in the absence of a Democratic candidate. Links to campaign websites: Republican Incumbent Wallace Jefferson vs. Democratic Opponent Jim Jordan Candidates' Answers to Question Posed by the League of Women Voters (from 2008 Voter Guide) 2008 Opinions by Wallace Jefferson, Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Nokia Inc., No. 06-1030 (Tex. Aug. 29,2008)(Jefferson) (insurance coverage, duty to defend) Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Brister joined. Federal Ins. Co. v. Samsung Electronics America, No. 06-1040 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Jefferson) (duty to defend cell phone company against consumer class action found) Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Brister joined. Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cellular One Group, No. 07-0140 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Jefferson) (insurance law, duty to defend, companion case to Zurich v. Nokia) Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Brister joined. Ulico Casualty Co. v. Allied Pilots Association, No. 06-0247 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Johnson) (insurance coverage, non-coverage claim, waiver, estoppel) Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a concurring opinion, in which Justice O'Neill joined. Trammell Crow Central Texas, Ltd v. Gutierrez, No. 07-0091 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Willett) (premises liability, owner liability for crime on property, forseeability, no duty) Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a concurring opinion, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Brister, and JusticeJohnson joined. In re Calla Davis, No. 07-0147 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Jefferson) (mandamus denial)(election law) (alcohol regulation by popular vote, procedure for local option referendum to turn dry area wet when boundaries of relevant area have changed) Chief Jefferson dissents on church's first amendment immunity from tort liability for exorcism performed on teenager Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert, No. 05-0916 (Tex. 2008) (Majority Opinion by Justice Medina) (constitutional law, first amendment freedom of religion clause, exorcism of demons, intentional tort claim by church member for mental anguish damages barred by church's religious doctrine immunity, estoppel claim also rejected) The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and dismisses the case. Justice Medina delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, and Justice Willett joined. Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Green joined, and in Parts II-A, III, and IV of which Justice Johnson joined. Justice Green delivered a dissenting opinion. Justice Johnson delivered a dissenting opinion. Breach of Implied warranty treated as a tort claim. Jefferson writes separately JCW Electronics, Inc. v. Garza, No. 05-1042 (Tex. 2008) (Opinion by Justice David Medina) (UCC breach of implied warranty claim in PI, death case a tort for purposes of comparative responsibility statute; recovery barred) Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a concurring opinion in JCW Electronics v. Garza, in which Justice O'Neill joined. Are attorney's fees available in a successful breach-of-warranty suit? - Yes Medical City Dallas, Ltd. v. Carlisle Corp., No. 06-0660 (Tex. Apr. 11, 2008)(Jefferson) (legal victory on UCC express breach of warranty claim warrants award of attorneys' fees) Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court. (Justice Hecht not sitting) Should bar owner be (not) be liable if drunk patron gets hurt, or someone else? - It depends 20281, Inc. v. Parker, No. 06-0574 (Tex. Mar. 28, 2008)(Jefferson)(Dram Shop Act) Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court. Chief Justice Jefferson writes dissent in consumer class action appeal Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Inman, No. 03-1189 (Tex. Feb. 1, 2008)(Opinion by Justice Nathan Hecht) (consumer law, product liability, class action dismissed on standing grounds, jurisdictional dismissal, DWOJ) Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson wrote a dissenting opinion in Daimler Chrysler v. Inman, which was joined by Justice Harriet O'Neill, Justice Paul Green, and Justice Phil Johnson Did the second motion for new trial extend the trial court's plenary power? In Re Brookshire Grocery Co., No. 05-0300 (Tex. Jan. 4, 2008)(Opinion by Wallace Jefferson) (appellate procedure, posttrial motions, procedure, extension of trial court's plenary jurisdiction) Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, and Justice Green joined. 2007 Opinions Written by Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson Chief Justice Jefferson weakens protections for whistle-blowers; holds that minor retaliation is not actionable under the Texas Whistleblower Act Montgomery County v. Park, No. 05-1023 (Tex. Nov. 30, 2007)(Opinion by Chief Justice Jefferson) (public employment, governmental entities, WBA, Texas Whistleblower Act, adverse employment personnel action) Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court. Chief Jefferson, writing for the Court, determines that doctor may not immediately appeal when required expert report in medical malpractice suit is deficient and trial court grants an extension to fix the problem. Justice Willett writes separately to opine that defendant should not be denied interlocutory appeal when report is written by plumber instead of medical expert and trial court denies defendant's motion to dismiss. Ogletree, MD v. Matthews, No. 06-0502 (Tex. Nov. 30, 2007)(Jefferson)(HCLC, medical malpractice, timely but deficient expert report, availability of interlocutory appeal, statutory construction) Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice Medina, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined. Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion. Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson rules against plaintiff who ended up in coma as a result of botched surgery - overrules constitutional challenge to statute of limitations enacted by Legislature to protect health care providers Yancy v. United Surgical Partners International, Inc. No. 05-0925 (Tex. Oct. 19, 2007)(Jefferson)(health care liability claim, statute of limitations, state constitutional open courts challenge denied) Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court. In Re SWBT, No. 05-0951 (Tex. Aug. 31, 2007)(orig. proc.) (Jefferson) (agency authority, jurisdiction, PUC jurisdiction) The Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus. Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court. (Justice Willett not sitting) Christus Health Gulf Coast v. Aetna, Inc., No. 05-0710 (Tex., Aug. 31, 2007)(Jefferson)(Medicare reimbursement suit in state court) Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court. PHC-Minden LP v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., No. 05-0823 (Tex. Aug. 31, 2007)(Jefferson)(personal jurisdiction, special appearance, foreign defendant, minimum contacts) Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court. Judgment in asbestos suit thrown out; Opinion by Chief Justice Jefferson Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores, No. 05-0189 (Tex. Jun. 8, 2007)(Jefferson)(asbestos suit, causation proof) Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court (Justice O'Neill not sitting) Chief Jefferson writes opinion denying expunction State of Texas v. Beam, No. 06-0974 (Tex. Jun. 1, 2007)(Jefferson)(expunction, misdemeanor) Express Warranty Disclaimer and "as is" provision in lease bar tenants' subsequent suit Gym-N-I Playbground, Inc. v. Snider, No 05-0197 (Tex. Apr. 20, 2007)(Jefferson)(commercial lease, as is provision, disclaimer of warranty) Commercial real estate landlords impliedly warrant that their premises are suitable for the tenants’ intended commercial purposes. In this case, however, the tenants expressly disclaimed that warranty. We must decide whether the disclaimer precludes the tenants’ suit against the landlord for breach of the warranty. We also decide whether the tenants’ agreement to lease the commercial building “as is” prevents them from suing the landlord for other claims based on the property’s condition. We answer both questions “yes” and affirm the court of appeals’ judgment. . . . We hold that the “as is” clause was in effect at the time of the fire, the implied warranty of suitability disclaimer expressly and effectively disclaimed that warranty, and the “as is” clause negated the causation element of Gym- N-I’s other claims against Snider. Consequently, we do not reach Gym-N-I’s remaining issues. In the Estate of Marvin Nash, No. 05-0538 (Tex. Apr. 20, 2007)(Jefferson)(effect of divorce on will) Separate Opinions by Chief Justice Jefferson (Dissents and Concurrences) Chief Justice writes separately in church-state case involving challenge to application of state regulation targeting diploma mills to religious institutions, seminaries HEB Ministries, Inc. v Teas Higher Education Coordinating Board, No. 03-0995 (Tex. Aug. 31, 2007)(Hecht) (regulation of religious institutions of higher education unconstitutional under first amendment) HEB MINISTRIES, INC., SOUTHERN BIBLE INSTITUTE, AND HISPANIC BIBLE INSTITUTE v. TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING BOARD AND COMMISSIONER RAYMUND PAREDES; from Travis County; 3rd district (03-01-00103-CV, 114 S.W.3d 617, 07/24/03) The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court. Justice Hecht announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion for the Court with respect to Part I, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice O’Neill, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice Medina, Justice Green, and Justice Johnson joined, and with respect to Part III-B, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice O'Neill, Justice Brister, Justice Medina, and Justice Green, joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II, III-A, and III-C, in which Justice O’Neill, Justice Brister, and Justice Medina joined. Justice Wainwright delivered an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Johnson joined. Chief Justice Jefferson delivered an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Green joined. (Justice Willett not sitting) In Re Allied Chemical Corp. No. 04-1023 Tex. Jun. 15, 2007)(Jun. 15, 2006)(Brister)(mandamus)(procedural law) IN RE ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION, ET AL.; from Hidalgo County; 13th district (13-04-00491-CV, ___ S.W. 3d ___, 11/04/04) stay order issued March 28, 2005, lifted motion to lift stay, dismissed as moot second supplemental motion to lift stay, dismissed as moot motion to dismiss mandamus proceeding as moot, denied The Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus. Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justice Hecht, Justice Medina, Justice Green, and Justice Willett Justice Hecht delivered a concurring opinion Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, and Justice Johnson Justice Wainwright delivered a dissenting opinion New opinions issued in Dram Shop Act case decided in 2006 F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. v. Duenez, No. 02-0381 (Tex. May 11, 2007)(subst. opinion by Wainwright (Opinion released Nov. 3, 2006 withdrawn)(Dram Shop Act) Dissent by Justice Jefferson. Dissent by Justice O'Neill Citizens Ins. Co. of America v. Daccach, No. 03-0505 (Tex. Mar 2, 2007)(Wainwright) (insurance law, class certification, choice of law) Separate opinion by Jefferson 2006 Opinions Authored by Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson Chief Justice Writes Opinions in Important Car Insurance Liability Cases State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Nickerson, No. 04-0427 (Tex. Dec. 22, 2006)(Chief Justice Jefferson) [insurance, automobiles, underinsured motorist coverage, UIM, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees] Brainard v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., No. 04-0537 (Tex. Dec. 22, 2006)(Chief Justice Jefferson) [automobile insurance, car accidents, UIM coverage, tort liability, prejudgment interest, attorney fees] This case presents the following issues: (1) whether uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) insurance covers prejudgment interest that the underinsured motorist would owe the insured in tort liability; (2) if so, how to apply settlement and personal injury protection (PIP) credits to the interest calculation; and (3) the circumstances under which an insured may recover attorney’s fees from the UIM insurer under Chapter 38 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. We hold that: (1) UIM insurance covers this prejudgment interest; (2) under the “declining principal” formula, each credit is applied according to the date on which it was received; and (3) the insured may recover attorney’s fees under Chapter 38 only if the insurer does not tender UIM benefits within thirty days after the trial court signs a judgment establishing the liability and underinsured status of the other motorist. We reverse the court of appeals’ judgment in part, affirm in part, and remand this case to the trial court to calculate prejudgment interest consistent with this opinion. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Norris, No. 04-0514 (Tex. Dec. 22, 2006)(Chief Justice Jefferson) [insurance, automobiles, UIM coverage, uninsured, underinsured, prejudgment interest, attorney's fees] An underinsured motorist (UIM) policy allows an insured to recover the difference between the negligent driver’s insurance policy limit and the full amount of damages, including prejudgment interest, determined at trial. The trial court held that the insured was not entitled to prejudgment interest under his UIM policy because the insurer had already paid benefits that exceeded the actual damages found by the jury. Additionally, the trial court refused to award attorney’s fees to the insured. The court of appeals reversed on both issues. In accordance with our Brainard opinion, we hold that the insured is entitled to prejudgment interest but not attorney’s fees. . . . We hold that Norris is entitled to prejudgment interest calculated under the declining principal formula. We reverse that part of the court of appeals’ judgment and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 60.2(f), 60.3. With respect to the attorney’s fees issue, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and render judgment for State Farm. TEX. R. APP. P. 60.2(c). Chief Justice Weighs In on Dispute on the Thirteenth Court of Appeals Involving Appellate Judge Who Lost Reelection Bid In re The Hon. Errlinda Castillo, No. 06-0314 (Tex. Aug. 31, 2006)(Chief Justice Jefferson) [writ for mandamus and prohibition in dispute among justices of the court of appeals denied] Other 2006 Supreme Court Cases with Opinions Written by Chief Justice Jefferson Slovacek LLP v. Walton, No. 04-1004 (Tex. Jun. 30, 2006)(Chief Justice Jefferson) [attorney's fees, contingency fee contract, termination, change of attorneys prior to judgment or settlement] Dissent by Justice Hecht City of Grapevine v. Sipes, No. 04-0933 (Tex. Jun. 16, 2006)(Chief Justice Jefferson) [Tort Claims Act claim, TTCA, city, traffic light, DWOJ] In re Lynd Company No. 05-0432 (Tex. June 9, 2006) (Justice Jefferson) (Rule 306a, late notice, motion for new trial) Kroger v. Suberu, No. 03-0913 (Tex. May 5, 2006)(Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson) [malicious prosecution, shoplifiting arrest, accusation, IIED, summary judgment] Terk v. Oppenheimer, No. 04-0681 (Tex. May 5, 2006)(Chief Justice Jefferson) [legal malpractice, estates, who may sue, capacity] Brittingham-Sada de Ayala v. Mackie, No. 04-0160 (Tex. Apr. 21, 2006)(Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson) [probate matter, ILA, interlocutory appeal not authorized in this case] City of White Settlement v. Super Wash Inc., No. 04-0340 (Tex. Mar 3, 2006)(Chief Jefferson) In re The Hon. Errlinda Castillo, No. 06-0314 (Tex. Aug. 31, 2006)(Chief Justice Jefferson) [writ for mandamus and prohibition in dispute among justices of the court of appeals denied] High Court Invalidates Attorney-Termination Provision of Contingent Fee Contract as Unconscionable Slovacek LLP v. Walton, No. 04-1004 (Tex. Jun. 30, 2006)(Jefferson) In this case, we must determine whether an attorney hired on a contingent-fee basis may include in the fee agreement a provision stating that, in the event the attorney is discharged before completing the representation, the client must immediately pay a fee equal to the present value of the attorney’s interest in the client’s claim. We conclude that this termination fee provision is contrary to public policy and unenforceable. We affirm the court of appeals’ judgment in part, reverse in part, and remand to the court of appeals for further proceedings. . . . Conclusion. Hoover’s termination fee provision penalized Walton for changing counsel, granted Hoover an impermissible proprietary interest in Walton’s claims, shifted the risks of the representation almost entirely to Walton’s detriment, and subverted several policies underlying the use of contingent fees. We hold that this provision is unconscionable as a matter of law, and therefore, unenforceable. We affirm that part of the court of appeals’ judgment reversing the trial court’s judgment, but reverse its take-nothing judgment, and remand this case to the court of appeals for further proceedings. Tex. R. App. P. 60.2(a), (d). Interlocutory Appeal Dismissed As Unauthorized Brittingham-Sada de Ayala v. Mackie, No. 04-0160 (Tex. Apr. 21, 2006)(Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson) Maria Cristina Brittingham-Sada de Ayala (“Ayala”), defendant below, alleged that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this ancillary probate proceeding involving the estate of her father, a Mexican testator whose will was probated in Mexico. The trial court denied Ayala’s motion to dismiss, and she pursued an interlocutory appeal. The court of appeals concluded it had jurisdiction over the appeal, and the parties now agree. Because we disagree, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and dismiss the appeal. . . . Conclusion. Because the court of appeals was without jurisdiction, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and dismiss the appeal. |
| 2008 Texas Supreme Court Race Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson vs. Jim Jordan |
| Also see ---> 2008 Texas Supreme Court Opinions | 2007 Tex. Opinions Opinions written by fellow justices: Justice Nathan L. Hecht | Justice Harriet O'Neill | Justice Dale Wainwright | Justice Scott A. Brister | Justice David Medina Justice Paul W. Green | Justice Don R. Willett | |
|