Free Speech, Due Process and Trial by Jury
Retiring Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan Hecht was greeted by 17 former judicial colleagues and many other well-wishers as he heard his final case. Some of those gathered now sit on federal benches, while others have thriving private practices. All expressed gratitude for his service. (Photo courtesy Supreme Court of Texas)
The deadly crash happened in December 2014 on an icy interstate near Odessa when a pickup truck carrying a woman and her three children crossed into the path of an 18-wheeler helmed by a driver trainee. Trucking and business interests decry the $116 million Harris County trial judgment as an outlier among commercial vehicle cases.
Not since the frontier days when Texas jurisprudence was being developed from Spanish law has there been a Supreme Court justice as influential as Nathan Hecht. While serving on the court for 35 years as a justice and chief justice, Hecht was a leader in the court’s transition from a plaintiffs-oriented body to one that pleased the business community with skepticism about large jury verdicts in tort cases. He played key roles in writing procedural rules that make litigation more efficient and vigorously advocated for civil legal services funding. As the longest-serving judge in Texas history hangs up his judicial robe due to state-mandated retirement, he recalls elections past and decisions that helped shaped the current court.
Justices on the newly created court engaged in spirited questioning over appeals involving DPS’ Uvalde school shooting records, the AG’s biometric data case against Google, and the firing of a Crowley ISD teacher who pinned down a student. Lawmakers gave the court broad authority over appeals involving the state and cases from the new business courts.
Allegations that two Texas lawyers should be held liable for solicitations that occurred in Louisiana and Arkansas put a spotlight on the unique Texas civil barratry law. The plaintiffs argue that the financing and directing of the scheme occurred in Texas. The lawyers say the lawsuit cannot overcome the presumption against extraterritoriality.
The history-making justice and chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court recounts his personal and family history at a ceremony unveiling his portrait. The great-great-great grandson of a once enslaved man who served on the Waco City Council during Reconstruction, Jefferson remembers ancestor Shedrick Willis along with the judge who once held Willis in bondage but later joined him in guiding Waco into a new era. (Photo by Mark Matson)
The $32 million estate of wealthy Laredo lawyer and businessman Carlos Benavides is at the center of the battle over a divorce initiated by his daughter and guardian. His fourth wife argues that her challenge to the divorce decree was not mooted by Benavides’ death amidst the appeal and that Texas law does not allow a guardian to petition for divorce on behalf of a ward. The daughter says that spousal lack of care for her mentally incapacitated father caused her to remove Benavides from his marital home. The Supreme Court this week is hearing other high-profile cases involving police immunity, defamation and professional discipline over a filing contesting the 2020 election.
Scott A. Brister is winding down his appellate practice as he prepares to once again don a black robe. Brister, who has served at all levels of the Texas court system, on Sept. 1 will step into his new role as chief justice of the Fifteenth Court of Appeals. He will be joined on the first and only intermediate appellate court given statewide jurisdiction by Scott K. Field, a Williamson County district judge and former Third Court of Appeals jurist, and April L. Farris of the First Court of Appeals. The trio will need their combined 30 years of judicial experience as they navigate some 70 state-related cases and prepare to develop jurisprudence for the new business trial courts. (Photo by Laura Skelding)
A 2003 tort reform law limits Honda’s liability because its ceiling-mounted detachable seatbelt system met federal safety regulations. The case presented novel questions about the interplay of state law and federal regulations. The large jury verdict was considered by some lawyers to be a so-called “nuclear verdict” ripe for reversal.
The Texas Supreme Court kept alive the lawsuit filed by Travis Central Appraisal District over a landfill’s slashed property valuation but returned the case to the district court on substantially narrowed grounds. The court sided with Texas Disposal System in removing the appraiser’s fair market value claim but will allow market value evidence to be heard. The tax dispute centers on an unusual property that also houses exotic animals and hosts private parties.
© Copyright 2026 The Texas Lawbook
The content on this website is protected under federal Copyright laws. Any use without the consent of The Texas Lawbook is prohibited.
