Upload
francis-randell-bennett
View
221
Download
6
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Texas Supreme
Court Update
Supreme Court Grants
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Supreme Court Dispositions
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Supreme Court Pending
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090
20
40
60
80
100
120
Majority Concur/Dissent PC0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Texas Supreme Court Opinions FY2008 & 2009
Texas Supreme Court Opinions
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090
50
100
150
200
250
Majority Concur/Dissent PC
Error Correction PCs 2004-08
Reverse/Modify Affirm/Deny0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Error Correction PCs 2009
Reverse/Modify Affirm/Deny0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Supreme Court 2004-09 PC Reverse
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 140
2
4
6
8
10
12
Supreme Court FY2009 Reversals per Justice
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 140.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Texas Supreme Court 2005-09 Mandamus Opinions
20
129
55
21
ArbitrationForum / VenueDiscoveryHabeasExpert ReportsOther
Court Changes
Court Changes
Justice Eva GuzmanFamily District Court Judge (1999-2001)
14th Court of Appeals (2001-2009) 900 opinions (4 of 12 dissents successful)
Court Changes
Court Changes
?
Court Changes
?Total Opinions
JeffersonHechtO'NeillWainwrightBristerMedinaGreenJohnsonWillett
Court Changes
?Per Curiam Opinions
JeffersonHechtO'NeillWainwrightBristerMedinaGreenJohnsonWillett
Court Changes
?Dissenting Opinions
JeffersonHechtO'NeillWainwrightBristerMedinaGreenJohnsonWillett
Court Changes
?Majority Opinions
JeffersonHechtO'NeillWainwrightBristerMedinaGreenJohnsonWillett
Issues Affecting Business Litigation
Arbitration
In re Morgan Stanley 2009 WL 1901635 (Tex. 2009)
Case: Customer signs contracts with arbitration clause, later declared incompetent.
Issue: Who decides whether client was competent when agreed to arbitration?
Holding: TC decides, not arbitrator.
Arbitration
In re Houston Pipe Line,2009 WL 1901640 (Tex. 2009)
Case: TC allows discovery on liability and damages before motion to compel arbitration.
Issue: Was discovery proper?Holding: No. Discovery strictly limited to
deciding motion to compel.
Pre-Suit Appraisal
St. Farm v. Johnson, 2009 WL 1900538 (Tex. 2009)
Case: Property policies all include pre-suit appraisal requirement.
Issue: Can appraisers decide causation?Holding: Appraisers decide damages, courts
decide liability. Check after appraisal to see if appraisers went too far.
Forum Selection Clause
In re Int’l Profit, 268 SW3d 921 (Tex. 2009)
Case: Contract sets disputes for Illinois, suit filed in Dallas.
Issue: Must forum-selection clause be specifically pointed out?
Holding: No. Parties are presumed to read their own contracts.
Limitations
Ditta v. Conte, 2009 WL 1566989 (Tex. 2009)
Case: Suit to remove trustee more than 4 years after improprieties began.
Issue: What is the limitations period for removing a trustee?
Holding: Like divorce, there is no statute of limitations.
Noncompetes
Mann Frankfort v. Stein, (Tex. 2009)
Case: Accounting firm requires employee to “buy” clients he takes if he leaves.
Issue: Is there are enforceable noncompete?Holding: Yes. Even if employer does not
expressly promise to provide confidential information, it can be implied from nature of the work.
Corporate Knowledge
Chrysler Ins. v. Greenspnt. (Tex. 2009)
Case: Defamation suit. Insurer denies coverage under known-falsity exclusion.
Issue: Can a corporation know of defamation when its officers did not?
Holding: Yes. Acts and knowledge of vice-principal are acts and knowledge of entity.
Corporate Structure
SSP v. Gladstrong, 275 SW3d 444 (Tex. 2009)
Case: Products suit against US importer/ subsidiary of Hong Kong manufacturer.
Issue: Can importer be liable for taking part in “single business enterprise”?
Holding: No. “Creation of affiliated corporations to limit liability while pursuing common goals lies firmly within the law.”
Derivative Suits
In re Schmitz, 285 SW3d 451 (Tex. 2009)
Case: Demand preceding derivative suitIssue: Must pre-suit demand: (1) name a
shareholder, and (2) give details of claim?Holding: Yes. Statute requires (1) current
shareholder, and (2) complaint stated “with particularity.”
Evidence
Reliance v. Sevcik, 267 SW3d 867 (Tex. 2008)
Case: Car wreck. P not seeking punitives, but proves D’s gross sales were $2 billion.
Issue: Harmful error?Holding: Yes. Wealth generally inadmissible.
Hard to claim evidence harmless when went to great effort to introduce it.
New Trial
In re Columbia Med. Ctr, 290 SW3d 204 (Tex. 2009)
Case: TC grants new trial “in the interests of justice”
Issue: Must TC state reasons?Holding: Yes. Trial judge cannot substitute own
views for those of the jury without explaining reasons.
Texas Supreme
Court Update
Supreme Court of Texas Update:
The train has left the station.Is it on the right track?
Joseph M. CoxPatton Boggs, LLP
[email protected] Boggs, LLP
2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3000Dallas, Texas 75201
214.758.3417
Attorney’s fees Smith v. Tam Trust, No. 07-0970, Oct. 23, 2009 Can TC, as a matter of law, award attorneys’ fees if
uncontroverted? In this case, P puts in evidence of $62k for attorneys fees
on $215k in damages Jury gives $65k in damages and $0 in atty’s fees TC affirms damages award and vacates $0 finding on atty’s
fees; CA reverses award on atty’s fees and gives full amount because fees were uncontroverted
TSC – reverses CA and states fee “was unreasonable in light of the amount involved and the results obtained, and in the absence of evidence that such fees were warranted due circumstances unique to case”
Evidence raised a fact issue since fees were unreasonable based upon results obtained
No evidence supports jury award of $0
ARBITRATION
Do unconscionable terms matter?
Even if the arbitration provisions have grossly unconscionable terms, the matter still has to go to arbitration?
In re Poly America, L.P., 262 SW3d 337 (August 2008)
TC compels arbitration and Plaintiff files a mandamus
Wait a minute – cannot appeal when TC compels arbitration, right?
Wrong! See dissent of Justice Brister – “Apparently, so long as one expresses qualms, Palacios is a dead letter.”
Provisions of limitation of remedies is unconscionable but arbitrator to decide if fee-splitting and discovery limits are unconscionable but SCT does not see them on their face as being unconscionable
When is mandamus available?
Justice Brister gets his revenge and actually writes an opinion on when a party can use mandamus in relation to a TC compelling it?
In re Gulf Exploration, April 17, 2009 “We granted oral argument to address more
specifically when mandamus relief is available in connection with orders compelling arbitration.”
“To be entitled to mandamus, ‘a petitioner must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal.’ ” citing In re McAllen Medical Center, 275 SW3D 458 – Wainwright dissent, “A whole new world …”
Who wrote majority for In re McAllen Medical Center?
Trial court and discovery
TC can order pre-arbitration discovery that relates to the scope of the underlying claim?
In re Houston Pipe Company (July 3, 2009)
TC ordered pre-arbitration discovery that went to the merits of the case as to scope of claim prior to ruling on motion to compel arbitration
CA affirmed SCT reversed – TC should have ruled
on arbitration issue and not allowed discovery
The fun continues!
Trial and jury issues
Ready, willing and able
Party must get jury finding on ready, willing and able in order to recover damages?
DiGiuseppe v. Lawler, 269 SW3d 588 Argued 10/20/05; decision 10/17/08 Must get jury finding on ready,
willing and able – if allegations were the equivalent of proof, there would be no need for trials
Vigorous dissent – the Court misrepresents the rule in Buford case
Evidence of gross sales
It can be error to admit evidence of gross annual sales of a company when there is no claim for punitive damages?
Reliance Steel v. Sevcik, 267 S.W.3d 867
Error to admit evidence of gross annual sales
“Neither a plaintiff’s poverty nor a defendant’s wealth can help a jury decide whose negligence caused an accident.” opening line of case
Contractual jury waivers
There is a presumption against a contractual jury waiver?
In re Bank of America, N.A. (278 SW3d 342 )
Just like arbitration provision, there is no presumption against jury waivers in contract
A bench trial is another form of alternate dispute resolution as court of appeals erred in distinguishing jury waivers from arbitration clauses
Motion for new trial
Signing a scheduling order instead of an order granting a new trial meets criteria of TRCP 329b(c)?
In re Lovito-Nelson (278 SW3d 773) Per curiam Scheduling order does not meet
criteria of 329b(c) unless it specifically states in the order that the motion for new trial has been granted
In the interests of justice
Can trial judge grant a new trial in the “interests of justice” without stating reasons?
In re Columbia Medical Center (July 3, 2009)
In re Baylor Medical Center at Garland (7/3/09)
In re E.I DuPont (7/3/09) TC must state its reasons as to why
motion for new trial is granted Broad to considerable to significant
to great discretion given to trial judges
Focus on Justice Brister
Does Justice Brister have a heart? Tanner v. Nationwide (April 17, 2009) – he
dissents and so you think not – plaintiffs verdict upheld (Tanner took default against Gibbons relating to high speed car chase of Gibbons by police)
Hagen v. Hagen (May 1, 2009) – he dissents and you will see that he does – this case is a modification of divorce decree (majority held VA benefits not the same as military retirement benefits and pours out ex-wife)
Dallas County v. Posey (May 22, 2009) Posey hung himself with phone cord in
cell Parents sue county – had evidence that
county had ordered replacement of all corded phones
County files pleas to jurisdiction – TC and CA deny the plea
SCT says that use of a phone cord is not tangible personal or real property to waive immunity – Posey used the cord not the governmental agency
Forum Selection Clauses
Does a defendant have to prove that it showed the forum selection clause to the plaintiff in order for the clause to be effective?
In re International Profit Associates (June 12, 2009 per curiam)
TC ordered that defendant had to prove that it showed f.s.c. to plaintiff and denied motion to dismiss on f.s.c. (CA affirmed)
SCT – TC abused its discretion in ordering this
Another In re Int’l Profit f.s.c. case (274 SW3d 672) - -SCT found f.s.c. valid
Chapter 33 Galbraith Engineering Consultants, Inc. v.
Pochuca (June 26, 2009) Case involves construction and design
defects of a home built in 1995 Pochucas sue builder who names engineer
as a RTP under Ch. 33, then Pochuca sues engineer
Engineer says post 10 years therefore you cannot sue me
SCT – correct as Chapter 33 does not revive claim barred by statute of repose
Expert testimony Is an objection at trial necessary to preserve
error on expert testimony? Apparently not so says SCT in City of San
Antonio v. Pollock (May 1, 2009) – benzene case Pollock’ daughter developed acute lymphoblastic
leukemia No objection to expert at time of trial but
objection first alleged at appellate level All parties agree that expert’s analysis was
reliable but on appeal testimony is challenged as conclusory
SCT does factual sufficiency review (in my opinion) of each expert and deems them inadequate as a matter of law despite no objection at trial