Opinions & Judgments

Subscribe to Opinions & Judgments via RSS

Appellate practitioners know that winning an appeal is not always the end of litigation.  Sometimes it’s just a new beginning of disputes, as my blog entry regarding the Supreme Court’s opinion in the In re Columbia Medical Center case indicates.  But other times, it really is supposed to be the end.  What happens if the trial judge doesn’t see it that way?

 Last month, I blogged about a case called In re Victor Enterprises, Inc., in which the Dallas Court of Appeals granted a petition for writ of mandamus against Dallas County Court at Law No. 1 after the judge of that court granted a petition for writ of mandamus without requesting a response from the Relator, Victor Enterprises.   The court of appeals held that such an act was clear error and granted mandamus.  Now there’s more to the story…Continue Reading Mandamus to prevent exercise of jurisdiction where there is none

The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals recently held that the learned intermediary doctrine does not apply to a drug manufacturer that advertises its products to consumers.  In doing so, the court affirmed the plaintiff’s multi-million dollar judgment against the drug manufacturer.

The court’s opinion is rather lengthy and traces the origins of the learned intermediary doctrine…

The case I blog about today reminds us of why it’s so critical to pay attention to appellate judgments.  As appellate practitioners, too often the first and only thing we study closely is the opinion, and errors in the appellate judgment go unnoticed.  To understand what happened here, I will start with a bit of history of the case.

In August of 2008, the Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion in Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas, Inc. v. Hogue, in which the Court "affirm[ed] the award of actual damages and gross negligence damages", but "reverse[ed] the portion of the judgment awarding loss of inheritance damages."  The court’s majority opinion may be found at this link.  Apparently, the judgment issued the same day simply stated that the portion of the court of appeals’ judgment awarding loss of inheritance damages is reversed and the remaining portions of the court of appeals’ judgment were affirmed.   In short, the court rendered judgment and did not remand the case.  The Court’s online docket shows Columbia filed a motion for rehearing, but there’s no indication what complaints were made.

After the court of appeals mandate issued, a dispute arose between the parties regarding the (now affirmed) award of gross negligence damages.  Columbia argued that because the actual damages had been reduced, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 41.008(b) required reduction of the punitive damages as well. 

In February of 2009, Columbia filed a motion with the Texas Supreme Court asking that the Court modify the mandate to reflect that punitive damages must be reduced (per statute).  The court denied the motion over a dissent authored by Justice Wainright (joined by Justices Hecht and Brister).  The dissent may be found at this link.

Continue Reading Using mandamus to fix errors in judgments

The Houston (14th) Court of Appeals recently held that a fee agreement that included a mandatory arbitration agreement does not violate public policy.  In this case, the attorney had included an arbitration clause requiring arbitration in Harris County under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)according to American Arbitration Association rules.  When the client brought suit against the…

Practitioners will want to take note of this recent opinion from the Dallas Court of Appeals.

In a split decision in Davis v. Rupe, the court affirmed a sanctions order against an attorney based upon the trial court’s inherent power to sanction.  Because the trial court did not issue findings of fact to support its order (an omission that the dissenting judge looked on with disfavor), the court had to consider all grounds on which the trial court might have based its decision.   The majority recited three grounds, each of which provides some interesting dynamics.Continue Reading The inherent power to sanction…

The Austin Court of Appeals recently held that a plaintiff’s notice of non-suit precludes a defendant from recovering attorney’s fees as prevailing party under a written agreement.  In this case, the plaintiffs bought a house from defendants under a standard-form sales contract promulgated by the Texas Real Estate Commission.   Plaintiffs brought suit against defendants for failing to disclose…