IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
════════&#=
9552;═══
No. 06-0874
════════λ=
2;═══
Bossier =
Chrysler-Dodge II,=20
Inc., d/b/a Bossier Country,
Petitioner,
v.
Bryan =
Rauschenberg,=20
Respondent
════════λ=
2;══════════&=
#9552;═════════_=
52;══════════=
══════════ =
552;═
On Petition for Review from =
the
Court of Appeals for the Tenth =
District of=20
Texas
════════&#=
9552;═════════λ=
2;══════════&=
#9552;═════════_=
52;══════════=
══
PER =
CURIAM
=20
In this appeal we are asked to consider whether the case should =
be=20
remanded for a new trial on attorney=92s fees. A divided court of =
appeals affirmed=20
the attorney=92s fees award although it reduced the trial court=92s =
damage award by=20
eighty-seven percent. 201 S.W.3d 787. We have =
said that=20
the issue of attorney=92s fees should ordinarily be retried under these=20
circumstances unless the appellate court is =93reasonably certain that =
the jury=20
was not significantly influenced by the erroneous [damage award].=94 Barker v. =
Eckman, 213 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. 2006). Our opinion in=20
Barker issued after the court of appeals=92 opinion in this case, =
and thus=20
the court of appeals did not have the benefit of that decision. =
Accordingly,=20
without hearing oral argument pursuant to Rule 59.1 of the Texas Rules =
of=20
Appellate Procedure, we grant the petition for review and reverse that =
part of=20
the court of appeals=92 judgment regarding attorney=92s fees, and remand =
the case to=20
the court of appeals for its consideration of the attorney=92s fees =
issue in light=20
of Barker.
Opinion=20
delivered: November 2,=20
2007