Case Summaries
Injury & Tort Law
[09/05]
Sindecuse v. Katsaros
In a case alleging common law fraud surrounding a stock purchase, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where the allegedly fraudulent statements could not support claims of fraud because they were: 1) predictions of the future; and 2) a promise of future action not accompanied by a present intent not to perform.
[09/05]
Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Goldberg
In a lawsuit by a corporation against its officers and attorneys, order granting defendant's application to file a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, motion is reversed, vacated, and remanded with directions to deny defendant's application to file an anti-SLAPP motion where: 1) defendant failed to provide a compelling explanation for why he did not file an anti-SLAPP motion earlier in the case; 2) defendant did not articulate any extenuating circumstances justifying a late filing; and 3) under these circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendant's application to file the anti-SLAPP motion.
[08/29]
Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cellular One Group
In a suit for a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs-insurers did not owe a duty to defend defendant-wireless telephone manufacturer in suits claiming biological injury caused by radiation emitted by its phones, the court relied on its simultaneously-released opinion in Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Nokia, No. 06-1030 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008), to hold that plaintiff-insurer had a duty to defend defendant-wireless telephone manufacturer.
[08/29]
Trammell Crow Cent. Tex., Ltd. v. Gutierrez
In a negligence suit alleging that the property manager of a shopping mall failed to provide adequate security, resulting in a criminal attack in which the victim was killed, affirmation of judgment in favor of plaintiffs is reversed where the criminal attack was not foreseeable, and defendants had no duty to protect invitees on their property from third-party criminal acts.
[08/29]
Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Goss
In a personal-injury suit, jury finding that defendant-employer was negligent is reversed and judgment rendered that plaintiff-employee take nothing where: 1) plaintiff's injury was caused by attempting to step around a loaded cart; 2) the potential danger of doing which was commonly known; and 3) defendant therefore had no duty to warn plaintiff of any risk.
More...
Health Law
[09/05]
Woodruff v. Mason
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit alleging that state social-services employees had retaliated against plaintiff-healthcare provider by instigating the launch of a predatory enforcement campaign aimed at driving plaintiff out of business, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate a causal link between its protected First Amendment activity and the alleged retaliation by defendants; and 2) plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to substantiate any of its three equal-protection claims.
[09/05]
Blue Cross Blue Shield Health Care Plan of Georgia v. Gunter
In a claim by plaintiff-Blue Cross Blue Shield Health Care Plan of Georgia seeking reimbursement of insurance benefits paid to defendant from his settlement with a third party, dismissal by district court is affirmed where: 1) Blue Cross failed to establish that this case is not governed by the general rule in Empire Health Choice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh; and 2)the court lacks federal question jurisdiction to hear the case.
[08/29]
Bismar v. Morehead
In a medical malpractice suit, dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of defendant's interlocutory appeal of denial of his motion for dismissal and attorney's fees on the ground that plaintiffs submitted a deficient expert report is reversed where the motion for dismissal was reviewable on interlocutory appeal.
[08/29]
In re Kiberu
In a case involving healthcare liability claims in which the trial court had authorized presuit depositions, a conditional writ of mandamus is awarded to compel court of appeals to reconsider relators' petition in light of In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416 (Tex. 2008).
[08/29]
Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cellular One Group
In a suit for a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs-insurers did not owe a duty to defend defendant-wireless telephone manufacturer in suits claiming biological injury caused by radiation emitted by its phones, the court relied on its simultaneously-released opinion in Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Nokia, No. 06-1030 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008), to hold that plaintiff-insurer had a duty to defend defendant-wireless telephone manufacturer.
More...
|
