Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around a personal injury claim filed by Hannah Tanner against Texas State University. Tanner was injured on October 4, 2014, when she was thrown from a golf cart on the University campus. She filed a lawsuit against the University, the Texas State University System, and Dakota Scott, a University employee who was driving the golf cart, on September 29, 2016, just before the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions was set to expire. However, Tanner did not serve the University until May 20, 2020, several years after the statute of limitations had run.The University argued that Tanner's lawsuit should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because she did not serve the University until after the statute of limitations had expired. The University contended that timely service of process is a statutory prerequisite to a suit against a governmental entity, and Tanner did not satisfy this prerequisite. The district court granted the University's plea to the jurisdiction, but the court of appeals reversed, holding that untimely service does not pose a jurisdictional issue that a plea to the jurisdiction can resolve.The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed with the court of appeals' conclusion. The court held that the statute of limitations, including the requirement of timely service, is jurisdictional in suits against governmental entities. Therefore, the University's plea to the jurisdiction was a proper vehicle to address Tanner's alleged failure to exercise diligence in serving the University. However, the court declined to determine whether the district court properly granted the plea. Instead, the court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case for that court to determine whether Tanner's service on Scott excuses her from the duty to serve the University. View "TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY v. TANNER" on Justia Law

The case involves successors in interest of mineral-rights holders who sued in 2019 to declare a 1999 judgment foreclosing on their predecessors’ property for delinquent taxes as void. They argued that there was constitutionally inadequate notice of the foreclosure suit, rendering the foreclosure judgment and the tax sale that followed both void. The current owners sought traditional summary judgment based on the Tax Code’s command that an action relating to the title to property against the purchaser of the property at a tax sale may not be commenced later than one year after the date that the deed executed to the purchaser at the tax sale is filed of record.The trial court granted the current owners' motion for summary judgment, and the court of appeals affirmed. The majority held that the sheriff’s deed conclusively established the accrual date for limitations, so the burden shifted to the successors to adduce evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there was a due-process violation that could render the statute of limitations inoperable. Because the successors relied only on their arguments and presented no evidence of a due-process violation, the majority concluded, the current owners were entitled to summary judgment.The Supreme Court of Texas held that under Draughon v. Johnson, the nonmovant seeking to avoid the limitations bar by raising a due-process challenge bears the burden to adduce evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact about whether the underlying judgment is actually void for lack of due process. Because the nonmovant here adduced no such evidence, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment based on Section 33.54(a)(1). However, the court also noted that the law governing this case has undergone meaningful refinement since the summary-judgment proceedings took place. Given these recent and substantial developments in the relevant law, the court remanded this case to the trial court for further proceedings in the interest of justice. View "GILL v. HILL" on Justia Law

Maryam Mohammadi, an employee at a Wells Fargo branch located inside a Randalls grocery store, slipped and fell next to a shopping cart that contained leaking items. Mohammadi sued Randalls, alleging that the store failed to warn her about the puddle that formed next to the cart. The jury ruled in favor of Randalls, finding that the store was not liable under a constructive-knowledge standard of premises liability, which asked whether Randalls should have reasonably known about the danger. The jury was instructed not to consider Randalls's liability under an actual-knowledge standard based on their answer to the constructive-knowledge question.The Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas reversed the jury's decision, arguing that the jury should have been allowed to consider liability under the actual-knowledge standard, even after finding no liability under the constructive-knowledge standard. The court of appeals held that Randalls could be charged with actual knowledge of the danger even without actual knowledge of the wet floor, because its employees knew a leaking product placed in a shopping cart would drip onto the floor.The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed with the court of appeals' interpretation. The court found that any error in the jury instructions would have been harmless because there was no evidence that Randalls had actual knowledge of the wet floor. The court clarified that the relevant danger was the wet floor, not the antecedent situation that produced it. The court concluded that since there was no evidence of actual knowledge of the danger, no reasonable jury could have answered the actual-knowledge question in Mohammadi’s favor. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstated the judgment of the district court. View "Albertsons, LLC v. Mohammadi" on Justia Law

Dorothy Hampton was released from the Medical Center of Southeast Texas after an abdominal hernia surgery. Later that night, she fell at home, becoming confused and disoriented, and was readmitted to the hospital. She filed a health care liability claim against Dr. Leonard Thome, alleging that she was released prematurely from the hospital which led to her fall and subsequent mental and physical injuries. Hampton's lawyer sent a pre-suit notice to Dr. Thome along with a medical authorization form as required under Texas law before filing a suit. The form listed only two providers and omitted future health care providers.Hampton filed her suit outside the usual two-year statute of limitations but within the 75-day tolling period provided by the law. Dr. Thome argued that the lawsuit was filed outside the limitations period as the medical authorization form served by Hampton was deficient, and hence the 75-day tolling period was not applicable. The trial court rejected this argument, but the court of appeals reversed the decision.The Supreme Court of Texas held that an imperfect medical authorization form is still a medical authorization form, which is sufficient to toll the statute of limitations for 75 days. The court emphasized that the limitations period should be established with clarity at the outset. Any defects or omissions in the medical authorization form that came to light during the litigation could have been adequately addressed by the statutory remedy of abatement, additional discovery, or even sanctions. The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "HAMPTON v. THOME" on Justia Law

In this divorce proceeding, the Supreme Court of Texas was asked to consider whether a judgment was rendered through an email sent only to the parties' legal counsel. The case involved Eve Lynn Baker and Terry Lee Bizzle, who after nearly 20 years of marriage, filed cross-petitions for divorce. The trial court informed the parties that a same-day ruling would not be possible and that the court would "e-mail the parties with the decision" at the end of the following week.Subsequently, the trial court sent an email to the parties' attorneys outlining the allocation of assets. The court did not copy the court clerk on this email or otherwise submit it to the clerk for filing or entry in the record. The trial court later signed a modified version of Wife's proposed final decree, declaring the parties divorced on insupportability grounds and dividing the marital estate.However, the court of appeals reversed this decision, ruling that the postmortem divorce decree was void for want of subject-matter jurisdiction because the trial court had not rendered judgment completely resolving the divorce action before the wife passed away.The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals' decision, finding that the trial court did not render judgment in the privately communicated October 4th email, and the wife's subsequent death divested the trial court of jurisdiction to render judgment in the postmortem final divorce decree. The court held that public pronouncement of the trial court's decision is not a mere formalism but an official judicial action affording the decision legal significance. View "BAKER v. BIZZLE" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Texas examined whether a lender could rescind a loan acceleration and reaccelerate the loan simultaneously, thereby resetting the foreclosure statute of limitations under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 16.038. The plaintiffs, Linda and Thomas Moore, defaulted on their home loan, leading to an acceleration of the loan by the lenders, Wells Fargo Bank and PHH Mortgage Corporation. The lenders subsequently issued notices rescinding the acceleration and then reaccelerating the loan. The Moores sued, arguing that the foreclosure statute of limitations had run out because the lenders' rescission notices also included notices of reacceleration. The federal district court ruled against the Moores, leading to their appeal and the subsequent certification of questions to the Supreme Court of Texas by the Fifth Circuit. The key question was whether simultaneous rescission and reacceleration could reset the limitations period under Section 16.038.The Supreme Court of Texas held that a rescission that complies with the statute resets the limitations period, even if it is combined with a notice of reacceleration. The court reasoned that the statute doesn't require the rescission notice to be separate from other notices, nor does it impose a waiting period between rescission and reacceleration. The court's ruling means that lenders can rescind and reaccelerate a loan simultaneously, thereby resetting the foreclosure statute of limitations. View "MOORE v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A." on Justia Law

In a dispute between Sealy Emergency Room, L.L.C., Dr. Kannappan Krishnaswamy, and Free Standing Emergency Room Managers of America, L.L.C. (FERMA), along with its doctors, the Supreme Court of Texas ruled on two issues regarding the finality and appealability of judgments. The case arose from a contractual dispute between Sealy ER and FERMA, with both parties filing various claims and counterclaims against each other. The trial court granted FERMA's motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing all of Sealy ER's claims, and later granted FERMA's motion to sever these claims into a separate action.The Supreme Court held that when claims are severed into separate actions, the test for finality applies to each action separately. Thus, any claims that remain pending in the original action are not relevant in deciding whether there is a final judgment in the severed action. Procedural errors in ordering a severance do not affect the finality of the judgment or appellate jurisdiction.Secondly, the court held that when a party seeks attorney’s fees as a remedy for a claim under a prevailing-party standard, a summary judgment against the party on that claim also disposes of its fee request. Therefore, the court’s failure to specifically deny the fee request will not prevent finality if the court’s orders in fact dispose of all parties and claims.In this case, the court concluded that the trial court’s order granting partial summary judgment disposed of all parties and claims that were later severed into a new action. As a result, the severed action became final when the severance order was signed, and Sealy ER timely appealed. The court of appeals erred in holding that it lacked appellate jurisdiction, so the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for the court of appeals to address the merits of the appeal. View "SEALY EMERGENCY ROOM, L.L.C. v. FREE STANDING EMERGENCY ROOM MANAGERS OF AMERICA, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The case in question was heard by the Supreme Court of Texas and revolved around the interpretation of the term "psychiatrist" as it applies to the involuntary civil commitment of individuals exhibiting signs of mental illness. The case involved a 34-year-old man, A.R.C., who had exhibited psychotic symptoms and delusional behavior. Two second-year psychiatry residents completed the required "certificates of medical examination for mental illness," as outlined in Tex. Health & Safety Code § 574.009(a). However, a question arose as to whether these residents could be considered psychiatrists under the statute.The Supreme Court of Texas ruled that these residents were indeed psychiatrists, reversing the lower court's judgment. The court determined that the residents, who were licensed under a physician-in-training program and were engaged in specialized psychiatric training, fell within the definition of a physician specializing in psychiatry. The court rejected the argument that only board-certified psychiatrists qualify under the statute, stating that physicians who specialize in psychiatry qualify as psychiatrists under § 574.009(a).The court emphasized that it is the judge, not the physician, who ultimately decides whether involuntary commitment is necessary or lawful. The court also noted that the legislature has the power to amend the qualifications for psychiatrists and other physicians as it sees fit, provided it adheres to the constitutional requirement of competent medical or psychiatric testimony.The Supreme Court of Texas remanded the case to the court of appeals for consideration of A.R.C.'s remaining challenges. View "IN RE A.R.C." on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over the right to use a gravel crossing over a railroad track in Johnson County, Texas. The landowners, Nathan Albert and Chisholm Trail Redi-Mix, LLC, were granted an easement by necessity, an easement by estoppel, and a prescriptive easement by a jury, allowing them to cross the railroad tracks owned by the Fort Worth & Western Railroad Company (Western). The jury also found that the landowners did not trespass on the railroad’s property. The Court of Appeals reversed these findings, stating that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury’s easement findings and factually insufficient to support the trespass finding. The Supreme Court of Texas partially reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment. It held that while the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury's findings of an easement by necessity and an easement by estoppel, it was legally sufficient to support the prescriptive easement. The Supreme Court of Texas remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals to consider unresolved issues involving the boundaries and permitted uses of the easement. The dispute started when the railroad company began sending notices to the landowners that they were trespassing on the railroad’s property by using the gravel crossing. Despite this, the gravel crossing had been used without issue for many years and had been referenced as a "private road" on local maps since the 1940s. View "ALBERT v. FORT WORTH & WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Texas considered a medical negligence case where a 13-year-old girl, Raynee Dunnick, was bitten by a rattlesnake and was treated by Dr. Kristy Marsillo at a local hospital. The hospital had a specific guideline for snakebite treatment, which was followed by Dr. Marsillo. This guideline recommends administering antivenom, a treatment for snakebite, only when certain clinical parameters are met. According to the guideline, the risk of side effects from the antivenom should also be considered.Raynee and her parents sued Dr. Marsillo, claiming that her adherence to the guidelines and her decision not to immediately administer the antivenom upon Raynee's arrival at the hospital was negligent and resulted in Raynee's pain, suffering, impairment, and disfigurement. The trial court granted Dr. Marsillo's motion for summary judgment on the grounds of no-evidence of breach of duty and causation. The court of appeals reversed this decision, but Dr. Marsillo appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas.In its decision, the Supreme Court of Texas held that under section 74.153(a) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, a heightened standard of proof is required for a patient's negligence claim against a physician for injuries arising out of the provision of emergency medical care. The claimant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the physician acted with willful and wanton negligence, which is at least equivalent to gross negligence.The court found that the evidence presented by Raynee did not meet this standard. Specifically, the court found that the expert affidavit provided by Raynee was conclusory and did not adequately explain why the guidelines should have been disregarded or why doing so would have posed an extreme degree of risk to Raynee. Therefore, the court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and reinstated the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Dr. Marsillo. View "MARSILLO v. DUNNICK" on Justia Law