This morning, the Third Court of Appeals issued a new opinion in an appeal of an administrative hearing of a Public Utility Commission decision from a fuel reconciliation hearing conducted pursuant to the Public Utility Regulatory Act. The opinion discusses the regulatory scheme by which an electricity provider can request the right to charge back certain costs to consumers. In other words, we will not offer detailed discussion of the opinion, but will instead simply refer you to it. Cause No. 03-03-00628-CV
The Court also issued a memorandum opinion in an appeal of a trial court’s decision to grant a no-evidence motion for summary judgment filed by a Defendant in an asbestos case. The no-evidence motion was based on the plaintiff’s deposition testimony that while he had used drywall joint compound products manufactured by the Defendant, there was no specific indication that he had been exposed to the Defendant’s products that actually contained asbestos (the Defendant in question had, over the years, made products both containing and not containing asbestos). The Plaintiff died less than three weeks after his deposition; during his thirty year career he had been exposed to a large number of asbestos-containing products, so, according to the Court of Appeals, his estate could not produce a scintilla of evidence that it was this particular defendant’s product which caused the plaintiff’s cancer. Cause No. 03-04-00150-CV
Finally, the Court also issued memorandum opinions in two termination of parental rights cases and a child custody case.