BOM Watch #5
Attorney immunity, local government immunity, the Tort Claims Act, and more.
We are very pleased to share that Texas Legal Roundup has exceeded 100 subscribers. That is a proud milestone for us, and we are grateful to those of you who take the time to read our posts. We intend to have more in the coming weeks, in which we’ll cover some of the most important opinions and share some opinion statistics from the Texas Supreme Court’s 2024-25 term.
Until then, here is the fifth installment of BOM Watch. The Court appears interested in the doctrine of attorney immunity, local government immunity, the Tort Claims Act, and more.
(For all new subscribers, this is a recurring post in which we summarize the questions presented in all the cases for which the Texas Supreme Court has requested briefs on the merits. For a more detailed explanation about why these cases matter, consider visiting our first BOM Watch post.)
25-0288, Umphress v. Steel. Does Canon 4A(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct prohibit judges from publicly refusing, for moral or religious reasons, to perform same-sex weddings while continuing to perform opposite-sex weddings? The Fifth Circuit would like to know. (SCOTX observers will recall that the Court confronted a similar case, Hensley v. State Comm’n on Judicial Conduct, a couple terms ago.)
25-0057, In re Hunter and 24-1010, In re Pierce Marshall, Jr. A son sued his mother and her longtime attorney for breach of fiduciary duty. Is the attorney entitled to attorney immunity, and does the trial court’s denial of attorney immunity warrant mandamus relief?
24-1015, Tarrant County Republican Party v. Rector. In this election dispute, did the trial court err by dismissing the Tarrant County Republican Party as an improper party and dismissing its TCPA motion to dismiss? The court of appeals thought so and held that the TCPA motion was rendered moot by the trial court’s jurisdictional ruling. Tarrant County Republican Party now wants a per curiam opinion GVR’ing in light of Texas Right to Life v. Van Stean.
24-0856, In re A.K.B., C.J.B., and M.L.A.B. Did Father kill Mother, or was it a suicide? Law enforcement says suicide; trial experts say murder. Jury agrees with the experts and terminates Father’s parental rights. Did Father waive his objections to the experts’ testimony?
24-0837, Icon Custom Home Builder v. Gaudet. Did the court of appeals wrongly substitute its own judgment for the trial court’s when it concluded that the plaintiff’s DTPA claims were not “groundless” and reversed the award of attorneys’ fees?
24-0802, ACS State Healthcare v. M&M Orthodontics. The election-of remedies provision in the Tort Claims Act says you can either sue the government or its employee, but not both. Everyone agrees that this election affects a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction—it bars suit once the election is made. So did the court of appeals err when it held that there were fact issues regarding employment, thus sending a question of subject-matter jurisdiction to the jury?
24-0796, 4 Families of Hobby v. City of Houston. Will hungry travelers continue to enjoy Pappas restaurant at the William P. Hobby Airport? That depends, in part, on whether the court of appeals improperly applied summary-judgment burdens to the City of Houston’s plea to the jurisdiction without permitting discovery of jurisdictional facts.
24-0778, In re Wheatfall. Does a party get multiple chances to contest the validity of a will before it is admitted to probate? Petitioner says yes, so that makes his appeal timely.
24-0772, Comprehensive Training Center v. Edcouch-Elsa Indep. Sch. Dist. Justice Young has previously called into question whether local government can repudiate contracts with private parties and get away without paying damages. In doing so, he suggested that the Court ought to reconsider its precedents allowing it. Is this the case do it? The respondent school district claims that its superintendent had no authority to sign a contract and now claims its not on the hook for any resulting damages.
23-0841, In re No Limit Construction Services. In this construction dispute, the subcontractor sued the general contractor for breach of contract. The general contractor filed a verified denial, but mistakenly filed it with the wrong case caption. The trial court grants summary judgment to the subcontractor based on that mistake. Is that an abuse of discretion warranting mandamus relief?