Free Speech, Due Process and Trial by Jury
“Birds of a feather flock together,” says the old proverb. But in the Dallas Court of Appeals this year, justices of the same political party do not always rule together, as shown by two recent opinions from that court.
Two cases decided by the Texas Supreme Court last week involved lawsuits against lawyers. One involved representational immunity, the other criminal defense malpractice. Not all they had to say favored lawyers. Janet Elliott explains.
An Ohio bridal shop lost its claim against Dallas Presbyterian Hospital Friday for its handling of the 2014 Ebola scare in Dallas, when the Texas Supreme Court decided unanimously that the shop's claim failed to meet an essential requirement of the Texas Medical Liability Act. The court ruled, in effect, that when it comes to medical claims bridal shops are people, too.
A $15,000 dispute involving the ill-starred Podesta Group was properly tossed from a Houston court, the First Court of Appeals ruled Thursday. The D.C. firm was accused of ignoring their client, a prominent Houston law firm, while the firm's co-founder, Tony Podesta, was under federal scrutiny in the Paul Manafort investigation.
Fort Worth is trying to control the proliferation of game rooms that have "eight-liners"—slot machines that issue coupons for lavish prizes like game systems or other electronics. The operators of those coin-operated amusement machines are fighting back. Janet Elliott explains the issue and how it relates to Chuck E. Cheese.
Ruhrpumpen General Counsel Eugene Moore hired the Cokinos law firm to handle a patent infringement case on a contingency fee. Moore then wanted a share of the fee for himself. But Moore died without informing his bosses he made such a deal. Now his wife wants Cokinos to pay up. But the Dallas Court of Appeals has the final word.
In some cases, emails can spell out the terms of a contract. But the Texas Supreme Court ruled last week that landowners seeking compensation for a pipeline never constructed couldn't make that case. Janet Elliott explains.
The Texas Supreme Court Friday ended an eight-year legal battle between Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners and Houston-based Enterprise Products Partners over a proposed partnership in a pipeline project. In a unanimous opinion, the court effectively wiped out a $535 million judgment, saying the two companies never fully executed their partnership agreement in the first place.
The Supreme Court ruled Friday that a 1987 will handing down ownership of a Zapata County ranch included its mineral interests. Though it took him six charts to do so, Chief Justice Nathan Hecht showed that the mineral interests were distributed to her heirs exactly as Leonor Ramirez intended.
Not only does the ruling ban a former sales executive for Merritt Hawkins and Associates from conducting business in five states; it also increases the likelihood for MHA to recover damages in the trial court. Natalie Posgate explains.
In a unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel ruled that a Dallas trial court did not have personal jurisdiction over British chemicals company Venator Materials, four of its executives and four underwriters of Venator’s 2017 IPO, who are all nonresident defendants in the litigation.
Having once rejected this case involving an out-of-state insulation company, the Texas Supreme Court heard arguments last week reconsidering the threshold of Texas products liability jurisdiction. Janet Elliott reports.
© 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.