Karl Bayer's Disputing Blog » Third Court of Appeals

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

By Rob Hargrove - December 16, 2005

On Wednesday, The Third Court of Appeals issued an opinion overturning a trial court summary judgment and rendering judgment in a case which involved the calculation of royalty fees under an oil and gas lease. Cause No. 03-04-00820-CV, Tana Oil & Gas Corp. v. Cernosek, et al.

Thursday, December 15, 2005

By Rob Hargrove - December 16, 2005

Yesterday, the Third Court of Appeals handed down two memorandum opinions. The first discussed a deferred ajudication of a truancy charge. Cause No. 03-03-00253-CV, Jim Walden v. Rex Baker, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4, Hays County Yesterday’s other memorandum opinion affirms a trial court judgment dismissing a declaratory judgment action which sought to invalidate Austin’s new smoking ordinance. The VFW, which operates bingo hall

Thursday, December 8, 2005

By Rob Hargrove - December 8, 2005

This morning, the Third Court of Appeals issued two opinions and a memorandum opinion. The first opinion affirmed the granting of a motion for summary judgment on the basis that a class of low income tenants of a housing complex did not have standing to complain that the buyer and seller of the property fraudulently misrepresented the condition of the propoerty to the FDIC in order to avoid having to provide housing to low income families. Brian,

Thursday, December 1, 2005

By Rob Hargrove - December 1, 2005

This morning, the Third Court of Appeals issued a memorandum opinion that addressed the issue of attorneys’ fees under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act. The Court affirmed a trial court decision to not award fees to a prevailing party on the basis that the declaratory relief obtained was redundant to other relief sought. In other words, the Court found that the dec action in question was added solely for the purpose of pleading a claim

Thursday, November 2, 2005

By Rob Hargrove - November 3, 2005

The Third Court of Appeals issued three opinions this morning. The first, which came from a case against the City of San Angelo Fire Department, explains an affirmative defense to the Texas Tort Claims Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity for claims involving the use of a motor vehicle. While sovereign immunity is usually waived in Texas in cases where a governmental employee negligently operates a motor vehicle, there is no waiver in cases w

Thursday, October 20, 2005

By Rob Hargrove - October 20, 2005

This morning, the Third Court of Appeals issued an opinion in an appeal by the Bexar Metropolitan Water District of a decision by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to approve the City of Bulverde’s application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity for water utility service. In this case, the administrative law judge recommended against the certificate, but the commission disagreed and granted the certificate, the

Thursday, October 13, 2005

By Rob Hargrove - October 13, 2005

This morning, the Third Court of Appeals affirmed a Travis County Trial Court’s granting of a no-evidence motion for summary judgment in favor of a hospital in a medical malpractice case. According to the Court, where a medical malpractice plaintiff filed a proper expert report under the former article 4590i but failed to designate any expert in response to a Request for Disclosure by the Level 3 Discovery Plan designation deadline, the Def

Thursday, October 6, 2005

By Rob Hargrove - October 6, 2005

This morning, the Third Court of Appeals issued three memorandum opinions. The first concerns a juvenile adjudication for the offense of assault, and the second affirms a decision by the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners to revoke a physician’s license to practice medicine in Texas. Cause Nos. 03-04-00001-CV and 03-04-00612-CV, respectively. The Court’s third memorandum opinion, in an interlocutory appeal, reverses a Trial Court&

Friday, September 23, 2005

By Rob Hargrove - September 23, 2005

Today, a divided panel of the Third Court of Appeals issued an opinion in a case involving the deregulation of Texas’ retail electricity market. Justice Pemberton wrote for the majority, he and Justice Patterson; Justice Smith issued a dissenting opinion. Rather than try to summarize a detailed pair of opinions on a complex regulatory issue, I will simply quote Justice Pemberton’s summary of the case and the majority’s position:

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

By Rob Hargrove - September 14, 2005

This morning, the Third Court of Appeals issued a memorandum opinion clarifying the technical requirements Rule 683 imposes on a temporary injunction. According to the Court, a TI must include a specific trial date lest it be void, even, as in this case, when the trial court in the underlying lawsuit (Hays County District Court here) has also granted a motion to compel arbitration, effectively precluding the possibility of a trial. The Court of A