The Dallas Court of Appeals recently decided an interesting issue involving whether evidence that attorney’s fees are reasonable under the Arthur Anderson v. Perry factors is required in a breach of contract case between attorney and former client. Here, a law firm brought suit against its former client for non-payment of fees pursuant to a contract
Opinions & Judgments
Offer of Settlement: No extension of deadlines to respond
The Tyler Court of Appeals has held that a trial court has no authority to extend the deadline for a party to respond to an offer of settlement made under Texas Civil Procedure Rule 167. In In re Complete Rx, Ltd., Good Shepherd Hospital sued Complete Rx for an accounting. Complete RX invoked…
Mandamus is Proper When Leave Denied to Join Responsible Third Parties
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently weighed in (again?) on whether a trial court’s erroneous ruling regarding designation of a responsible third party is subject to mandamus. In this case, the trial court denied relator’s motion to designate a responsible third party. The trial court did not allow relator to replead. A divided panel held…
Mandamus for Discovery of Personal Computer Hard Drive
The Dallas Court of Appeals granted a petition for writ of mandamus in a case in which the trial court ordered production of a personal computer hard drive and e-mail account.
Misty Jordan sued Gajekse, Inc. alleging that she was subjected to a hostile work environment and then fired for reporting it. The trial court…
Net Worth and Supersedeas
“supersedeas” “net worth” “abuse of discretion”…
Continue Reading Net Worth and Supersedeas
Failure to Comply with an Appellate Mandate
“mandamus” “default judgment” “mandate”…
Continue Reading Failure to Comply with an Appellate Mandate
Attorney disqualification redux
The San Antonio Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed that "[t]he fact that a lawyer serves as both an advocate and a witness does not, standing alone, compel disqualification." Here, the court also restated the well-settled rule that disqualification of counsel is subject to mandamus. The court reiterated that Rule 3.08 only requires disqualification if the…
41.0105 — post-judgment reduction does not cure error
I have been waiting and watching for post-Haygood opinions, and the Amarillo Court of Appeals delivered a great opinion this week with Henderson v. Spann. In a 2-1 opinion, the panel held that the trial court’s admission of unadjusted medical bills and exclusion of adjusted medical bills constituted reversible error even though the trial court …
Failure to Announce for Trial May Result in Dismissal
Can the failure to announce ready for trial be a basis for dismissal of the suit? The answer is apparently "yes."
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a allows a court to dismiss a case for want of prosecution for failure of any party seeking affirmative relief to appear for any hearing or trial. In…
Texas Supreme Court confirms that temporary employees are subject to the comp bar
In Port Elevator-Brownsville, L.L.C. v. Casados, the Texas Supreme Court reaffirmed this State’s prohibition on split workforces (i.e., Texas employers are not permitted to cover some but not all employees with worker’s compensation insurance if the employer is a subscriber), and confirmed that a temporary employee is covered by the employer’s comp policy (and subject to the comp bar) even if the employer took steps to intentionally exclude the temporary employee from coverage (such as not paying premiums for such employees or not including a classification for temporary employees under the policy).
Practitioners on both sides of the bar that deal with personal injury and wrongful death claims should take note of this opinion because it confirms what many in the defense bar have been arguing for a number of years. But coverage attorneys should also take note because one key point in the Court’s analysis was its acceptance of a rule set out by the Amarillo Court of Appeals in 1940 — that "premiums are an issue between the employer and the insurer; they do not affect the employee’s coverage." (Slip op. at 9) (citing Tex. Employers’ Ins. Ass’n v. Stanton, 140 S.W.2d 337, 339-40 (Tex. Civ. App.–Amarillo 1940, writ ref’d).Continue Reading Texas Supreme Court confirms that temporary employees are subject to the comp bar
