SCt Update Texarkana Jan 2019 - txgovernmentlaw.org · AMK9 moved to (1) dismiss as Pol Q, & (2) designate Army/DOD as RTP TC granted both motions & dismissed CA reversed & remanded

1/28/2019

1

Texarkana Main Event CLE 2019

Texas Supreme Court UpdateJustice Jeff BoydJanuary 30, 2019

Current SCOTX Justices

C.J. Nathan Hecht (`89)

Paul Green (`04)

Eva Guzman (`09)

Debra Lehrmann (`10)

Jeff Boyd (`12)

John Devine (`13)

Jeff Brown (`13)

Jimmy Blacklock (`18)

(?)

SCOTX DECISIONS

2018‐19

TOTAL

Per Curiam

Unanimous

Split

Pending post OA

Granted pending OA

1

2

3

1/28/2019

2

SCOTX DECISIONS

2018‐19

TOTAL 22

Per Curiam 10

Unanimous 11

Split 1

Pending post OA 44

Granted pending OA 14

SCOTX DECISIONS`13‐14 `14‐15 `15‐16 ‘16‐17 `17‐18 `18‐19

TOTAL

Per Curiam

Unanimous

Split

Pending post‐OA

SCOTX DECISIONS`13‐14 `14‐15 `15‐16 ‘16‐17 `17‐18 `18‐19

TOTAL 83 93 92 81 99 22

Per Curiam

Unanimous

Split

Pending post‐OA

4

5

6

1/28/2019

3

SCOTX DECISIONS`13‐14 `14‐15 `15‐16 ‘16‐17 `17‐18 `18‐19

TOTAL 83 93 92 81 99 22

Per Curiam

23 36 28 16 29 10

Unanimous

42 39 45 53 52 11

Split 18 18 19 12 18 1

Pending post‐OA

SCOTX DECISIONS`13‐14 `14‐15 `15‐16 `16‐17 `17‐18 `18‐19

TOTAL 83 93 92 81 99 22

Per Curiam

23 36 28 16 29 10

Unanimous

42 39 45 53 52 11

Split 18 18 19 12 18 1

Pending post‐OA

4 0 0 0 0 44

SCOTX SPLIT DECISIONS`13‐14 `14‐15 `15‐16 `16‐17 `17‐18 `18‐19

7

8

9

1/28/2019

4


1 in diss 3 5 3 1 0 0

2 in diss 1 1 4 3 9 1

3 in diss 4 5 7 3 4 0

4 in diss 9 5 4 4 4 0


1 in diss 3 5 3 1 0 0

2 in diss 1 1 4 3 9 1

3 in diss 4 5 7 3 4 0

4 in diss 9 5 4 4 4 0


1 in diss 3 5 3 1 0 0

2 in diss 1 1 4 3 9 1

3 in diss 4 5 7 3 4 0

4 in diss 9 5 4 4 4 0

5‐1‐3 0 1 0 0 0 0

4‐2‐1‐2 0 1 0 0 0 0

4‐1‐4 1 0 1 0 0 0

3‐2‐4 0 0 0 0 1 0

10

11

12

1/28/2019

5


1 in diss 3 5 3 1 0 0

2 in diss 1 1 4 3 9 1

3 in diss 4 5 7 3 4 0

4 in diss 9 5 4 4 4 0

5‐1‐3 0 1 0 0 0 0

4‐2‐1‐2 0 1 0 0 0 0

4‐1‐4 1 0 1 0 0 0

3‐2‐4 0 0 0 0 1 0

(conc/xtra diss)

(7) (8) (13) (14) (9) (1)

SCOTX AFFIRMANCE RATE`14‐15 `15‐16 `16‐17 `17‐18 `18‐19


Reversed 60 (65%) 58 (63%) 53 (65%) 64 (65%) 17 (77%)

Mandamus granted

8 (9%) 10 (11%) 7 (9%) 8 (8%) 3 (14%)

13

14

15

1/28/2019

6


Reversed 60 (65%) 58 (63%) 53 (65%) 64 (65%) 17 (77%)

Mandamus granted

8 (9%) 10 (11%) 7 (9%) 8 (8%) 3 (14%)

Affirmed 18 (19%) 15 (16%) 20 (25%) 22 (22%) 1 (5%)

Mandamus denied

4 (4%) 1 (1%) 1 (1%) 4 (4%) 0


Reversed 60 (65%) 58 (63%) 53 (65%) 64 (65%) 17 (77%)

Mandamus granted

8 (9%) 10 (11%) 7 (9%) 8 (8%) 3 (14%)

Affirmed 18 (19%) 15 (16%) 20 (25%) 22 (22%) 1 (5%)

Mandamus denied

4 (4%) 1 (1%) 1 (1%) 4 (4%) 0

Certified Question

3 (3%) 4 (4%) 0 0 0

Abated/Vacated

0 4 (4%) 0 1 (1%) 1 (5%)

SCOTX DECISIONS: CONTROLLING LAW`14‐15 `15‐16 `16‐17 `17‐18 `18‐19

Constructionof law

Construction of contract

Common law / Evidence

16

17

18

1/28/2019

7


Constructionof law

49 (53%) 58 (63%) 33 (41%) 53 (54%) 8 (36%)




Constructionof law

49 (53%) 58 (63%) 33 (41%) 53 (54%) 8 (36%)


10 (11%) 8 (9%) 15 (18%) 16 (16%) 2 (9%)



Constructionof law

49 (53%) 58 (63%) 33 (41%) 53 (54%) 8 (36%)


10 (11%) 8 (9%) 15 (18%) 16 (16%) 2 (9%)


34 (37%) 26 (28%) 33 (41%) 30 (30%) 12 (55%)

19

20

21

1/28/2019

8


Constructionof law

49 (53%) 58 (63%) 33 (41%) 53 (54%) 8 (36%)


10 (11%) 8 (9%) 15 (18%) 16 (16%) 2 (9%)


34 (37%) 26 (28%) 33 (41%) 30 (30%) 12 (55%)

SCOTX DECISIONS: SUBJECT MATTER`16‐17 `17‐18 `18‐19

SCOTX DECISIONS: SUBJECT MATTER`16‐17 `17‐18 `18‐1924 Torts

13 Contracts

13 Govt / SI / Regulatory

10 Pretrial issues

6 Property

5 Insurance

4 Employment

2 Family / Probate

22

23

24

1/28/2019

9

SCOTX DECISIONS: SUBJECT MATTER`16‐17 `17‐18 `18‐1924 Torts 16 Pretrial issues

13 Contracts 14 Contracts

13 Govt / SI / Regulatory 13 Govt / SI / Regulatory

10 Pretrial issues 10 Torts

6 Property 9 Family / Probate9 Jurisdiction

5 Insurance 5 Employment

4 Employment 4 TCPA

2 Family / Probate 3 Taxation3 Appeals

SCOTX DECISIONS: SUBJECT MATTER`16‐17 `17‐18 `18‐1924 Torts 16 Pretrial issues 4 Taxation

13 Contracts 14 Contracts 4 Jurisdiction

13 Govt / SI / Regulatory 13 Govt / SI / Regulatory 3 Evidence

10 Pretrial issues 10 Torts 2 Torts

6 Property 9 Family / Probate9 Jurisdiction

2 Procedure

5 Insurance 5 Employment 2 Appeals

4 Employment 4 TCPA 1 Govt / SI / Regulatory1 Family /Probate

1 Insurance2 Family / Probate 3 Taxation

3 Appeals

2017‐2018

HIGHLIGHTS

25

26

27

1/28/2019

10

City of Laredo v. Laredo MerchantsNLH (8‐0) (6/22/18)

City adopted ordinance generally prohibiting businesses from providing single‐use plastic or paper bags.

Merchants sued: preempted by Solid Waste Disposal Act, which prohibits

local law restricting “sale or use of a container or package”

for “solid waste management purposes”

unless authorized by state law

TC granted City’s MSJ & denied Merchants’

CA reversed & rendered for Merchants

Held: Affirmed.

Tarr v. Timberwood Park HOAJVB (9‐0) (5/25/18)

HOA fined Tarr for VRBOing his home in violation of deed restrictions:

(1) “used solely for residential purposes” and

(2) construct only “single family residences”

TC: granted HOA’s MSJ & denied Tarr’s

CA affirmed

Held: Reversed

‐ Cannot conflate the two separate provisions

‐ “S‐F residence” addresses only the structure

‐ Occupants “use” home only as a residence, &

deed does not impose intent or duration limits

American K‐9 v. FreemanNLH (7‐2) (6/29/18)

Military contractor’s employee in Afghanistan attacked by other contractor’s dog.

AMK9 moved to (1) dismiss as Pol Q, & (2) designate Army/DOD as RTP

TC granted both motions & dismissed

CA reversed & remanded

Held: Case presents non‐justiciable political question

‐ AMK9 entitled to proportionate‐responsibility defense

‐ Will necessarily require examination of sensitive

military decisions

28

29

30

1/28/2019

11

Lujan v. NavistarJDB (9‐0) (4/27/18)

Adopted the “Sham Affidavit Rule”

TC may disregard a SJ affidavit if

‐ It conflicts with affiant’s prior sworn testimony

(or other sworn evidence), and

‐ Party fails to provide a sufficient explanation for

the conflict.

O&G / Mineral RightsEndeavor Energy v. Discovery Operating (JSB 9‐0) (4/13/18)

‐ Retained acreage includes 81 acres operator assigned in its RRC filings, not the full 160 acres the RRC field rules designated

XOG Operating v. Chesapeake (NLH 9‐0) (4/13/18)‐ Retained acreage includes the full 320 acres the RRC field rules designated, not the lesser amount the operator assigned‐ “Each case turns on the text of the retained‐acreage provision at issue.”

US Shale v. Laborde (DHL 6‐3) (6/29/18)‐ Deed that reserved “an undivided ½ interest in and to the Oil Royalty, same being equal to 1/16 of production” reserved a floating royalty interest.

Wasson v. City of Jacksonville (II)JSB (9‐0) (6/1/18) (on MFR 10/5/18)Wasson I (2016): governmental/proprietary‐function dichotomy applies to BofKclaims just as it does to tort claims.Wasson II: what was the City’s function here?City granted long‐term leases of lakefront propertyCity terminated lease when Wasson VRBO’d the house.Wasson sued for BofK (and related DJ/INJ)TC granted city’s PTJ; CA affirmed (twice)Held: Reversed‐ Focus on capacity when city entered the K,

not when it breached the K‐ 4 considerations: mandatory/discretionary?

benefit general public or local residents? acting on State’s behalf or its own? sufficiently related to govtl function?

31

32

33

1/28/2019

12

Nazari v. StateJVB (5‐2) (6/22/18)Medicaid fraud enforcement action against orthodontists,

seeking amts paid, pre‐JI, 2x amts paid, civil penalties, AFs & costsDs filed counterclaims for damages, alleging BofK, mismanagementTC granted PTJ holding SI bars counterclaimsCA affirmedHeld: Affirmed1. Reata n/a when State seeks only a penalty2. Action seeks only penalties

(punitive relief, not compensatory)

State v. HarperJVB (5‐3) (6/29/18)Suit to remove elected Hosp Dist board member for incompetence & misconduct

(Tex. Const. & Loc. Gov’t Code)Harper filed MTD under TCPA TC denied; CA reversed & remanded for AFs & sanctionsHarper lost reelection while MFR pending in CA1. Moot? No bc AFs award “breathes life” into appeal2. “Enforcement action”? (TCPA does not apply)

1. Removal for misconduct (“unlawful”) = Yes2. Removal for incompetence = No

3. Sovereign Imm bar claim for TCPA AFs, costs, sanctions?Neither statute waives immunityBut based on “TCPA’s unique status” and SI principles, SIdoes not apply ”in the first place”

2018‐2019

TWO HIGHLIGHTS

34

35

36

1/28/2019

13

Musallam v. AliPJ (9‐0) (10/26/18)Party argued K was unenforceable agrmt to agreeParty requested jury Q whether enforceable K existedJury found “Yes”; Party filed JNOV, then appealed, arguing finding is immaterialHeld: Party did not waive right to argue matter‐of‐law on appeal A complaint that a jury answer is immaterial is not a complaint about the jury charge

RSL Funding v. Newsome

JPD (9‐0) (12/21/18)

Arbitration agreement referred arbitrability to arbitrator

Party sought BOR challenging judgments approving contract that included arbitration agreement

Held: Per K, arbitrator must decided

whether arbitration agreement

applies to BOR

2018‐2019

GRANTEDNOT YET DECIDED

37

38

39

1/28/2019

14

TDCJ v. Levin

Argued 1/23/19

May TDCJ withhold identity of execution‐drug supplier under a threat‐of‐harm exception to the PIA?

Garcia v. City of Willis

Argued 11/1/18

Suit challenging red‐light‐camera ordinance

Does TC lack jurisdiction because P failed to exhaust administrative remedies?

Does UV exception to govtl immunity apply?

In re City of Dickinson

Argued 9/12/18

Does a party waive its ACP as to documents it provides to its employee/corporate rep when the party

‐ designates the employee as an expert witness and

‐ the employee reviews the documents

to prepare for his testimony

40

41

42

1/28/2019

15

Barbara Tech v. State Farm Lloyds& Ortiz v. State Farm Lloyds

(Set 2/20/19)

Does invoking insurance policy’s appraisal clause

toll Prompt Pay Act’s deadlines?

Does insurer’s timely payment of appraisal award

bar BofK and bad‐faith claims?

Tarrant Regional Water Dist. v. Johnson

Argued 10/30/18

Does the TTCA’s “discretionary

function exception” apply to a

claim that the District allowed a

“scour hole” beneath a dam

deeper than the channel’s design?

Rawson v. Oxea

Argued 9/10/18

Under CPRC Chapter 95, did subcontractor create a FI as to whether property owner had

‐ actual knowledge of the danger or condition resulting in subcontractor’s electrocution, and

‐ control of the subcontractor’s work?

43

44

45

1/28/2019

16

Texarkana Main Event CLE 2019

Texas Supreme Court UpdateJustice Jeff BoydJanuary 30, 2019

46

Documents

SCt Update Texarkana Jan 2019 - txgovernmentlaw.org · AMK9 moved to (1) dismiss as Pol Q, & (2) designate Army/DOD as RTP TC granted both motions & dismissed CA reversed & remanded