Significant Victories
Vigil v. Ludwig-Vigil, No. A-1-CA-37912, 2020 WL 6155390 (N.M. App. Oct. 20, 2020)
In this domestic relations appeal, the Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the district court’s method of calculating the community’s interest in Husband’s retirement benefits and valuing Wife’s share. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the district court’s refusal to allow Wife’s late-disclosed expert to testify, where Wife offered her expert report months after the evidentiary hearing.
Decker v. Columbia Med. Ctr. of Plano, No. 05-19-01508-CV, 2020 WL 6073880 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 15, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.).
Successfully reversed a Chapter 74 dismissal, holding that a cardiologist with hospital administration experience was qualified to opine as to a hospital’s policies and procedures for providing cardiac care.
Gonzales Nursing Operations, LLC v. Smith, No. 04-20-00102-CV, 2020 WL 5646482 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 23, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op).
Successfully dismissed interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction by independent contractor who contracted with a government entity to manage a nursing home. Claiming derivative sovereign immunity, the contractor sought to appeal the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction. Without reaching the substance of the derivative sovereign immunity claim, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that contracting with a government entity did not transform the contractor into a "governmental entity" entitled to appeal under the interlocutory appeal statute.
Shiloh Treatment Center, Inc. v. Ward, 608 S.W.3d 337 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. denied)
Affirming denial of second Chapter 74 motion to dismiss filed by operators of facilities for young people with mental disabilities filed after unsuccessful appeal of the first Chapter 74 motion to dismiss, finding the law of the case doctrine barred second motion to dismiss based on the same facts.
Nettles v. GTECH Corp., 603 S.W.3d 63 (Tex. 2020)
Reversing plea to the jurisdiction and affirming the denial of an identical plea in another case, filed by GTECH, a private contractor hired to provide instant ticket manufacturing and services to the Texas Lottery Commission. Following its prior opinion in Brown & Gay Eng’g, Inc. v. Olivares, 461 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. 2015), the Court determined that because GTECH had discretion with regard to game design, and the Lottery Commission did not control the manner in which that work was performed, GTECH was not entitled to immunity.
Texas Children’s Hosp. v. Knight, 604 S.W.3d 162 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, pet. filed)
Affirming denial of Chapter 74 motions to dismiss filed by various health care providers, finding that challenged experts were qualified and that their reports satisfied Chapter 74’s gatekeeping functions in all respects.
Pennington v. Fields, No. 05-19-00149-CV, 2020 WL 2611251 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 22, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.)
Successfully reversed summary judgment in majority shareholders’ favor and rendered summary judgment in favor of minority owner in a closely -held corporation, holding that Retiring Shareholder provision of Cross Purchase Agreement required remaining shareholders to purchase retiring shareholder’s shares. In doing so, Court of Appeals rejected majority shareholders’ arguments that (1) provision created only an option, but not an obligation, to purchase retiring shareholder’s shares and (2) that minority shareholder was not a “retiring” shareholder because majority shareholders terminated his employment with the closely-held corporation and minority shareholder had taken employment elsewhere.
Osburn v. Baker, No. 04-19-00568-CV, 2020 WL 2441426 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 13, 2020, no pet.)
Successfully reversed no evidence and traditional summary judgment in a dog bite case, convincing court of appeals that Plaintiff’s claims of strict liability, negligent handling, and gross negligence were supported by deposition testimony that dog was “leery” around strangers, prone to nip at heels, and that owners considered putting the dog away when plaintiff visited, but decided not to. The court of appeals also refused to hold that compliance with a local leash law negated an element of plaintiff’s claim when the plaintiff did not allege a violation of the leash law.
Poledore v. Daniel, No. 05-18-01278-CV, 2020 WL 1685333 (Tex. App.—Dallas April 7, 2020, no pet. h.) (mem. op.)
Successfully defeated appeal by client’s incarcerated ex-husband who complained about the notice given him of a bench trial on his partition suit, and who complained about a motion for continuance of that trial so that the ex-husband could conduct more discovery. The court of appeals determined that the ex-husband was provided adequate notice and opportunity to appear at his trial, and that the ex-husband’s motion did not warrant a continuance of trial.
Fair Oaks Housing Partners, LP v. Hernandez, 616 S.W.3d 602 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.)
Successfully dismissed an appeal from a 2014 default judgment for lack of jurisdiction, rejecting the defendants’ argument that the default judgment was interlocutory because an unserved defendant was never nonsuited. The court concluded that the default judgment was final because the plaintiff had abandoned all remaining claims against the unserved defendant.
In re Eagleridge Operating, LLC, No. 05-19-01171-CV, 2020 WL 408409 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 24, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)
Denying mandamus relief, finding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking responsible third party designation by owner of gas facility of former minority-interest owner and contract-operator. The court of appeals held that the minority owner, who sold its interest in the premises to the majority owner prior to the personal injuries at issue, owed no duty to the injured plaintiff because, under premises-liability principles, any such duty passed to the majority owner when its interest was sold.
Kemp v. Brenham, No. 05-18-01377-CV, 2020 WL 205313 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 14, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.)
Reversed and rendered take nothing judgment on claims of constructive eviction, finding that landlord-tenant relationship no longer existed at the time the former tenant was locked out of the property, and no evidence that the tenant abandoned the property based on the conduct of the landlord.
Griego v. Oliver, 316 P.3d 865 (N.M. 2013) (representing amicus curiae)
Holding that statutory scheme that denied same-sex couples the right to marry violates the Equal Protection Clause of the New Mexico Constitution.
Lane v. Manfre, No. 05-18-01305-CV, 2020 WL 104625 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 9, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.)
Affirmed summary judgment in favor of ex-husband on ex-wife’s assault claims based on prior settlement agreement that includes those same claims as part of parties’ divorce.
Brazos Contractors Dev., Inc. v. Jefferson, 596 S.W.3d 291 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet. h.)
Successfully affirmed $2.15m verdict, with court of appeals upholding jury finding of negligence based on general contractor’s retention of contractual control over subcontractor, even where jury found that general contractor did not retain actual control. Court of appeals also upheld jury’s “no” answer to the plaintiff’s contributory negligence and past and future medical expenses.
In re Turner, 591 S.W.3d 121 (Tex. 2019)
Court held that the expert-report requirement to proceed with a health-care-liability claim does not apply to a non-party doctor’s deposition when the doctor is a fact witness with knowledge relevant to claims against the defendant Hospital, even if the doctor may also face the possibility of becoming a defendant.
Morris v. Ponce, 584 S.W.3d 922 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, pet. filed)
In matter of first impression, affirming denial of Chapter 74 motions to dismiss filed by newly-added nurses, holding that for purposes of section 74.351(a), an action does not commence as to each defendant until it is first named as a defendant.
Hulsey v. Attalla, No. 01-18-00189-CV, 2019 WL 3484082 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 1, 2019, no pet. h.) (mem. op.)
Affirming judgment following a jury trial concerning personal injuries suffered in an automobile collision. In addition to rejecting the defendant’s many challenges to the jury’s causation and damage findings, the court of appeals also rejected an evidentiary argument regarding the improper admission of liability insurance, concluding that the defendant failed to show that the admission of such evidence caused rendition of an improper judgment.
Maxion v. State, No. 02-18-00176-CR, 2019 WL 3269324 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 18, 2019, pet. ref’d) (en banc)
Obtained reversal on en banc reconsideration holding that issue previously decided on appeal was not properly raised.
Barbara Tech. Corp. v. State Farm Lloyds, 589 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. 2019)
In this hail damage case, the Texas Supreme Court effectively overruled the so-called Brashears rule to preserve a Texas Prompt Pay Act claim following an appraisal award in certain circumstances. The Court was fractured with 5 justices in the majority, 1 justice concurring in part and dissenting in part, and 3 justices dissenting. Justice Green authored the opinion of the Court.