Recent Texas State Court Decisions

For a more detailed review of a particular case's holding and facts, please click on any of the citations highlighted below.

• The Texas Supreme Court limits the right to claim damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress where a statutory right exists to recover emotional damages for the same actions that form the basis of the intentional infliction claim. Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Zeltwanger, 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 981 (August 27, 2004).
  
  
• Post-judgment motions addressing costs or attorney’s fees are considered collateral issues – even when the costs or attorney’s fees are included in the final judgment – and do not toll the time for filing an appeal. Moody National Bank of Galveston v. GE Life and Annuity Assurance Company, ___ F.3d ___, No. 03-41237 (5th Cir. Aug. 24, 2004). Moody National Bank of Galveston v. GE Life and Annuity Assurance Company
  
  
• The Texas Supreme Court holds that assigning DTPA claims would defeat the primary purpose of the statute—to encourage individual consumers to bring such claims themselves. The personal and punitive aspects of DTPA claims cannot be squared with a rule allowing them to be assigned as if they were mere property. PPG Industries, Inc. v. JMB/Houston Centers Partners Limited Partnership, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2004).
  
  
• The Airline Deregulation Act preempted claims pre-empts a passengers claims for breach of contract, fraud, and misrepresentation arising out of an airlines failure to honor a the passenger’s confirmed seat in first class. Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Black, 2003 WL 22100799, 46 Tex. Sup. Ct. Jour. 1146 ( Tex. , Sept. 11, 2003 )
  
  
• The Texas Supreme Court holds that when a jury’s failure to find greater damages in more than one overlapping category is challenged, the court of appeals should first determine if the evidence unique to each category is factually sufficient. If it is not, the court of appeals should then consider all the overlapping evidence, together with the evidence unique to each category, to determine if the total amount awarded in the overlapping categories is factually sufficient. Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson , ___ S.W.3d ___, 46 Tex. Sup. Ct. Jour. 1133 ( Sept. 11, 2003 ).
  
  
• Defendant has no duty to preserve evidence that was disposed of in the normal course of business when it has no notice that the evidence would be relevant to a future claim. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Johnson, et al., ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 01-0441 (Tex. May 22, 2003).
  
  
• The Texas Supreme Court discusses the factual and legal sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and inferences in this premises liability case involving an unwitnessed accident. Marathon Corporation v. Pitzner, ___ S.W.2d ___, No. 01-0870 ( Tex. May 22, 2003 ).
  
  
• Supreme Court orders new trial due to excessive sanctions against Defendant. Spohn Hospital, et al. v. Karen Mayer et al., 46 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 694 (April 24, 2003).
  
  
• A professional services exclusion in a commercial general liability policy applies only when the insured has breached the applicable standard of care in rendering those professional services. Utica National Ins. Co. of Texas v. American Indemnity Co., ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 02-0090 (Tex. June 26, 2003).
  
  
• The Texas Supreme Court declines to impose a common-law duty of care on employers who conduct in-house urine specimen collection for drug testing under DOT regulations. Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc. v. Solomon, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 01-0292 (Tex. May 15, 2003).
  
  
• The Texas Supreme Court has refused to recognize a claim for loss of consortium for the parents of children who have been seriously injured. Roberts, et al. v. Williamson, et al., 46 Texas Supreme Court Journal 944 (July 3, 2003).