Carrington, Coleman, Sloman, & Blumenthal, L.L.P.

Carrington, Coleman, Sloman, & Blumenthal, L.L.P. Blogs

Blog Authors

Latest from Carrington, Coleman, Sloman, & Blumenthal, L.L.P.

BPX Operating Company v. Strickhausen Supreme Court of Texas, No. 19-0567 (June 11, 2021) Justice Blacklock (opinion available here) Justice Boyd Dissent (available here) Kelli Hinson         Ms. Strickhausen’s mineral lease with BPX prohibited pooling her tract with others without her “express written consent.” Nevertheless, BPX pooled several tracts, including Strickhausen’s property, to create a 320-acre unit. Unlike Strickhausen’s lease, her neighbors’ leases permitted pooling. BPX attempted to obtain Strickhausen’s written consent or ratification of the pooling, but Strickhausen consistently refused and repeatedly objected to BPX’s activity. As the parties continued to communicate and discuss a settlement…
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. Reavis Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-19-00075-CV (June 3, 2021) Justices Partida-Kipness and Nowell (opinion available here); Justice Schenck dissenting (here) Kelli Hinson The Reavis family was involved in a violent car accident in their Lexus, which resulted in the parents being propelled into the back seat, where they crashed into their small children, who suffered skull fractures and traumatic brain injuries as a result. The family sued Toyota, asserting design and marketing defects. Even though the vehicle complied with all applicable safety standards, the jury found against Toyota, awarding $242…
Panameno v. Williams Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-19-01496-CV (June 1, 2021) Chief Justice Burns and Justices Reichek and Carlyle (Opinion linked here) Lyndon Bittle            It was a dark and stormy night. Two cars collided. The defendant in a lawsuit about the accident testified that he “hit a large puddle of water, hydroplaned, and spun into a car in which Mr. Panameno was a passenger.” The defendant denied he was negligent, insisting he acted reasonably given the poor road conditions and bad weather. The district court defined “Act of God” and asked the jury to assign…
Aerotek, Inc. v. Boyd Supreme Court of Texas, No. 20-0290 (May 28, 2021) Chief Justice Hecht (Opinion, linked here); Justice Boyd Dissenting (linked here) Ken Carroll In Aerotek, the Texas Supreme Court overturned the decisions of a trial court and court of appeals that refused to compel arbitration between the company and certain of its employees. In the process, the Court significantly bolstered parties’ ability to rely on electronic signatures and digital contracts. When four Aerotek employees sued the company for discrimination and retaliation, Aerotek moved to compel arbitration of the dispute, relying on an arbitration agreement that…
In re K & L Auto Crushers, LLC Supreme Court of Texas, No. 19-1022 (May 28, 2021) Justice Boyd (Opinion, linked here), Justice Huddle Dissenting (linked here) Ken Carroll In 2018, the Texas Supreme Court ruled in In re North Cypress Medical Center that “the negotiated rates a medical provider charged to patients’ private insurers and public-entity payors [like Medicare and Medicaid] were relevant and discoverable on the issue of the reasonableness of the ‘full’ rates the provider charged to an uninsured patient for the same services.” That ruling came in the context of a lawsuit between an…
Haynes and Boone, LLP v. NFTD, LLC Supreme Court of Texas, No. 20-0066 (May 21, 2021) Justice Bland (opinion available here) Landry’s, Inc. v. Animal Legal Defense Fund Supreme Court of Texas, No. 19-0036 (May 21, 2021) Justice Blacklock (opinion available here) Kelli Hinson The SCOTX issued two long-awaited decisions clarifying the scope of important immunity protections for attorneys—attorney immunity and the judicial-proceedings privilege. First, in Haynes and Boone v. NFTD, the Court expressly confirmed for the first time that the attorney-immunity doctrine applies outside the context of litigation. The doctrine, previously outlined and applied to litigation and…
Ex parte R.P.G.P. Supreme Court of Texas, No. 19-1051 (May 14, 2021) Justice Guzman (Opinion, linked here), Justice Bland Dissenting (Opinion linked here) Ken Carroll Expunction is a statutory civil remedy that, when applicable, largely erases the record of an individual’s arrest. It allows one who has been arrested to “deny the occurrence of the arrest and [deny even] the existence of the expunction order” itself, except in a criminal proceeding. It also prohibits governmental and private entities named in the expunction order from maintaining, disseminating, or using the expunged records “for any purpose.” A court will issue…
Cruz v. Hernandez. Dallas Court of Appeals. In 2012, Cruz was appointed guardian ad litem for three minors in a personal injury case. In 2015, the trial court issued an order abating the case pending resolution of a separate lawsuit against an underinsured-motorist insurance carrier. After the case had lain dormant for about three years, the trial court set a status conference. When Cruz didn’t appear for the conference, the trial court removed him and appointed a new guardian. Months later, in May 2019, Cruz applied for compensation for his services as guardian and, two days later, the trial court…
Retail Services WIS Corp. d/b/a Product Connections v. Crossmark, Inc. Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-20-00937-CV (May 4, 2021) Justices Schenck, Reichek, and Carlyle (Opinion linked here) Lyndon Bittle The Dallas Court of Appeals vacated for lack of specificity several provisions of a temporary injunction against a company’s former employees and its competitor (their new employer). The court affirmed other provisions of the order, and remanded to the trial court. Crossmark and Product Connections compete for business providing “in-store consumer experience” services to large retailers. In a familiar scenario, Crossmark sued Product Connections and three former Crossmark employees for…
In re Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Co. Supreme Court of Texas, No. 19-0701 (April 23, 2021) Opinion by Justice Busby linked here. Partial Dissent by Chief Justice Hecht linked here. Lyndon Bittle The Texas Supreme Court held an insurer cannot be liable under Stowers when a case settles within policy limits, but requiring the insured to contribute to the settlement might be a breach of contract. The lawsuit arose from an auto accident involving Cassandra Longoria (Farmers’ insured) and Gary Gibson. Farmers appointed its in-house counsel to defend Longoria. Gibson offered to settle the lawsuit for $350,000,…