Scott posted on Friday that the Texas Supreme Court issued 18 opinions and set for cases for oral argument. This is the second of two posts summarizing the opinions and the issues presented in the cases set for oral argument.
Opinions
1. City of Arlington v. Whittington, No. 10-0316 (majority opinion, concurrence/dissent) -- This is the latest (and perhaps last) chapter in a contentious condemnation dispute. The jury found that the City of Austin's necessity determination was arbitrary, capricious, or fraudulent. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed The Court clarified that, unless the underlying facts are in dispute, the issue of whether a necessity determination was arbitrary, capricious, or fraudulent is a question of law for the court. The Court then found that, as a matter of law, the city's determination of necessity was not arbitrary, fraudulent, or capricious.
2. Prairie View A&M University v. Chatha, No. 10-0353 (majority opinion, dissent) -- The Supreme Court was required to resolve a conflict between state law and federal law on the deadline for a claim of discriminatory pay. Texas law requires a claim to be filed with the Texas Workforce Commission or the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 180 days of the unlawful practice. Texas courts have interpreted this to mean within 180 days of when the discriminatory decision was made. Federal law was recently amended to provide that for pay-discrimination claims the 180-day period restarts with each paycheck. The Texas Supreme Court decided that the federal law does not apply to claims under Texas law.
3. Hearts Bluff Game Ranch, Inc. v. State, No. 10-0491 (majority opinion, dissent) -- The Court decided that there was no jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim because it was not a proper inverse condemnation claim. The Army Corps of Engineers denied the plaintiff's application for a mitigation banking permit because the state indicated that it intended to eventually use the plaintiff's land for a reservoir. The Supreme Court held that refusal to issue the permit was a federal action, not a state action.
4. Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas) L.P. v. Avinger Timber, LLC, No. 10-0950 (majority opinion, dissent) -- In another condemnation case, the Supreme Court addressed the proper measure of damages for condemnation of property on which a gas processing facility was located. The Court found that the property owner was entitled to be compensated for the use of the land as for a gas processing facility. But the Court concluded that the opinion of the property owner's valuation expert was based on the unique value to condemnor, thus violating the "value-to-the-taker" rule.
5. PNS Stores Inc. v. Rivera, No. 10-1028 (opinion) - PNS brought a direct and collateral attack on a default judgment, asserting that the trial court had never obtained personal jurisdiction and that the judgment was affected by extrinsic fraud. The Supreme Court rejected the personal-jurisdiction argument, but found that there was some evidence of extrinsic fraud.
6. Robb Evans, as Receiver for Mediacopy Texas, Inc. v. Unit 82 JV, No. 11-0217 (per curiam opinion) - The Supreme Court reiterated its recent holding that actions taken in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay are void, not merely voidable. But the Court reversed the trial court's sua sponte decision that the entire proceeding violated the automatic stay.
7. Texas Comm'n on Human Rights v. Morrison, No. 11-0644 (per curiam opinion) - In yet another case on Casteel error, the Court reiterated its recent holding that a party does not have to specifically mention Casteel to preserve Casteel error. The Court also held that a party does not need to request a proper question to preserve Casteel error; an objection is sufficient. I will have more to say on this case in a later post.
8. City of Beaumont v. Como, No. 11-0888 (per curiam opinion) - After notice, the City condemned and demolished Como's building. Instead of appealing the nuisance determination, Como filed a separate takings claim after the demolition. The Court held that Como was barred from collaterally attacking the nuisance determination and dismissed the claim.
9. In re Uresti, No. 12-0305 (per curiam opinion) - This is a mandamus petition seeking review of an injunction relating to inclusion of candidates in a primary election. Because the election had already occurred, the Court dismissed the petition as moot.
Issues in Cases Set for Oral Argument
The Court also granted two petitions for review and set them for oral argument in January:
1. Coinmach Corp. v. Aspenwood Apartment Corp., No. 11-0213 (TAMES page) - This a rare petition granted after a motion for rehearing of the petition. There are cross-petitions for review presenting issues related to a real estate dispute including (1) liability of tenants at sufferance for trespass; (2) the viability of the "continuing tort" doctrine in tortious interference claims; (3) DTPA claims; and (4) breach-of-contract claims.
2. Zanchi v. Lane, No. 11-0826 (TAMES page) - This is the latest in a long line of cases addressing the requirement to provide expert report for health care liability claims. The petition raises issues related to the adequacy of service of the report.
- Rich Phillips, Thompson & Knight
Comments