BOM Watch #3
Gun rights, healthcare-liability claims, and property disputes
Herewith the third installment of BOM Watch. The Court appears interested in, inter alia, gun rights, healthcare-liability claims, and property disputes.
23-0839, Henry v. Whitlock-Henry. After the district court issued a 35-year protective order prohibiting Father from, among other things, possessing firearms or contacting Mother, Father petitioned for review raising three issues: (1) whether the protective order’s duration is too long, (2) whether the order infringes on his federal and state constitutional rights to own a firearm, and (3) whether the district court overstepped in ordering mental-health treatment.
24-0023, Noyes v. Texas. In another appeal from a protective order in which the district court issued a lifetime ban on possession of firearms, a former boyfriend of the respondent asks the Court to consider (1) whether, after Bruen and Rahimi, the order violates his constitutional right to possess firearms and (2) whether the lifetime protective order is too long.
24-0206, Megatel C90-2 v. Bank of Utah. In this breach-of-contract dispute involving a leased airplane, the question presented is whether, in the absence of a showing of “injustice,” a plaintiff can pierce the corporate veil based solely on the fact that the corporation was undercapitalized.
24-0229, Richman Trusts v. Time. In this dispute over partnership assets, the questions presented are (1) whether the death of a partner made the deceased partner’s heirs partners and (2) whether there was conclusive evidence as to whether certain properties were treated as partnership properties.
24-0349, MPII, Inc. v. Hidalgo. In this negligence suit in which three children sued the funeral home for mishandling their mother’s remains, the question presented is whether the children’s tort claims fall under the funeral home’s arbitration agreement.
24-0541, Albertson Companies, Inc. v. County of Dallas and 24-0619, SPCSA PLLC v. County of Bexar. In this MDL litigation, various Texas counties asserted “health care liability claims” against pharmacies that allegedly ignored red flags while dispensing opioids. The question presented is whether a county is a “claimant” subject to the requirements of the Texas Medical Liability Act, including the requirement to file an expert report.
24-0555, Granger v. Morath. The question presented in this education-related litigation is whether a suspended superintendent of a school district must first file a “grievance” with the district before petitioning the Commissioner of Education for relief.
24-0568, Tessmer Law Firm v. Carrilo. In this suit to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement arising from a car accident, the questions presented are (1) whether the lower courts incorrectly added non-parties and claims to the settlement agreement and (2) whether petitioners waived an argument regarding the settlement agreement’s scope by not raising it in their response to a motion for summary judgment.
24-0595, Young v. National Association of Chain Drug Stores. When the Health and Human Services Commission updated the Texas Vendor Drug Program Pharmacy Provider Procedural Manual to add discounts that must be included in pharmacies’ reimbursement requests to Medicaid, did it have to comply with the APA’s rulemaking requirements?
24-0782, Busse v. South Texas Independent School District. Taxpayers allege that South Texas Independent School District has been unconstitutionally levying a tax without voter approval. Do the taxpayers have standing?
24-0809, In re Regalia at the Park Holdings, LLC. In this mandamus action, the question presented is whether a property owner can expunge a lis pendens when the pleading on which the lis pendens is based does not contain a real-property claim.
24-0814, Balderrama v. Tenet Hospitals Limited. Is a non-consensual invasive autopsy a “health care liability claim” under the Texas Medical Liability Act? A majority on CA13 appeals says yes. A dissent says no.
24-0879, In re Lapuerta. Is the loss-of-chance doctrine—which allows plaintiffs to recover damages for a diminished chance of a better outcome because of a doctor’s negligence—part of Texas common law?
24-0883, In re Bell Helicopter. In this suit arising from a fatal helicopter crash, the question presented is whether the 18-year statute of repose restarted when the helicopter manufacturer revised parts of its flight manual (or continued to omit a warning from its flight manual).
24-1078, Paxton v. City of Austin. In this expedited declaratory-judgment action concerning a proposed light-rail system in the City of Austin, the question presented is whether the trial court’s refusal to rule on the Attorney General’s plea to the jurisdiction and subsequent decision to set the case for trial constituted an implicit denial of the plea, thus triggering an appellate court’s interlocutory appellate jurisdiction.