The following are updates to our continuing list of recent opinions from the various courts in Texas. For more detailed information, please subscribe to our mailing list.
Texas Supreme Court
Court of Criminal Appeals
1st Court of Appeals – Houston
2nd Court of Appeals – Fort Worth
3rd Court of Appeals – Austin
4th Court of Appeals – San Antonio
5th Court of Appeals – Dallas
6th Court of Appeals – Texarkana
7th Court of Appeals – Amarillo
8th Court of Appeals – El Paso
9th Court of Appeals – Beaumont
10th Court of Appeals – Waco
11th Court of Appeals – Eastland
12th Court of Appeals – Tyler
13th Court of Appeals – Corpus Christi
14th Court of Appeals – Houston
|Texas Supreme Court|
|Court of Criminal Appeals|
|1st Court of Appeals – Houston|
|Joseph W. Peine v. Elite Airfreight, Inc.
Appeal from 189th District Court of Harris County.
Summary: Joseph W. Peine appealed from a directed verdict rendered against him in his breach of contract suit against appellee Elite Airfreight, Inc. In three issues, appellant argued that the trial court: (1) erred by granting the directed verdict, (2) abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of Elite’s former legal counsel, and (3) abused its discretion by sealing portions of the record. Affirmed.
Premium Valve Services, LLC v. Comstock Oil & Gas, LP, Comstock Oil & Gas-Louisiana, LLC and Certain Underwriters
Summary: Premium Valve Services, LLC appealed from a final judgment, rendered upon trial to the jury, in favor of appellees, Comstock Oil & Gas, LP, Comstock Oil & Gas-Louisiana, LLC, and Certain Underwriters. In two issues, PVS argued that the trial court erred by refusing to include a proposed question in the jury charge, and by failing to apply the proper measure of damages. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
|2nd Court of Appeals – Fort Worth|
|Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and U.S. Specialty Insurance Company, Surety v. Standard Renewable Energy, LP and SRE3 GP, LLC, Individually and as its General Partner
Appeal from 362nd District Court of Denton County
Summary: Appellants Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and U.S. Specialty Insurance Company, Surety, appealed from a final judgment rendered on a jury verdict in favor of Appellees Standard Renewable Energy, LP and SRE3 GP, LLC, Individually and as its General Partner (collectively, SRE). In three issues, each containing several subissues, Hobby Lobby complains about SRE’s fraud claim, the jury charge, and the judgment. Reversed and remanded.
In the Interest of H.L. and K.L., children
Summary: Father appealed the trial court’s child-support modification order. In one issue, Father argued that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his repeated request that the trial be reopened for evidence. Affirmed.
|3rd Court of Appeals – Austin|
|4th Court of Appeals – San Antonio|
|5th Court of Appeals – Dallas|
| E.F. Johnson Company v. Infinity Global Technology f/k/a Infinity Gear and Technology, LLC, et al.
Appeal from 95th Judicial District Court of Dallas County
Summary: A jury found that appellant E.F. Johnson Company (EFJ) fraudulently induced appellees Infinity Global Technology f/k/a Infinity Gear and Technology, LLC (Infinity) and Charles Kirmuss d/b/a Kirmuss & Associates (Kirmuss) to enter into a Distribution Agreement. The jury found further that EFJ failed to comply with the terms of the Distribution Agreement. The jury assessed damages for both the fraudulent inducement and breach of contract; the trial court assessed attorney’s fees. In seven issues, EFJ challenges: (1) the trial court’s failure to apply a contractual limitation-of-liability provision, (2) Kirmuss’s status as a party to the Distribution Agreement, (3) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a finding of fraudulent intent, (4) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the damages award, (5) the trial court’s failure to require appellees to elect their remedy, (6) the basis and rate of prejudgment interest, and (7) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees. Infinity and Kirmuss brought three cross issues, challenging the trial court’s interest award and its segregation of attorney’s fees as between them. Reversed in part, modified in part, and affirmed the remainder.
In the Estate of Friley S. Davidson, Deceased
Appeal from Probate Court No. 1 of Dallas County
Summary: Appellant J. Stacy Davidson, a former co-executor of the estate of Friley Davidson, challenged two orders signed by the trial court: (1) a partial summary judgment removing appellant as co-executor, and (2) an order denying appellant’s motion for new trial following a jury trial on the issue of damages. Appellant argued that his appeal of the summary judgment is timely, his removal was improper, and the trial was undermined by incurable jury argument. Court held the summary judgment appeal was untimely and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
|6th Court of Appeals – Texarkana|
|7th Court of Appeals – Amarillo|
|8th Court of Appeals – El Paso|
|9th Court of Appeals – Beaumont|
|10th Court of Appeals – Waco|
|11th Court of Appeals – Eastland|
|12th Court of Appeals – Tyler|
|13th Court of Appeals – Corpus Christi|
|14th Court of Appeals – Houston|