The Supreme Court of Texas will hold oral arguments beginning at 9 a.m. CT on February 18 and 19, and at 10 a.m. CT on February 20.

Oral arguments are streamed live and preserved on the Supreme Court's YouTube page. 

The public may attend in person on February 19 and 19 in the Supreme Court Courtroom, 201 W. 14th St., Austin, TX. The Court will hold oral arguments beginning at 10 a.m. on February 20 at the Sheila & Walter Umphrey Law Center at Baylor University, 1114 S. University Parks Drive, Waco, TX 97288.

Mehta v. Mehta

The principal issue in this case is whether child-support payments should be considered when determining a spouse’s eligibility for spousal maintenance.

For Petitioner: Anthony J. Lucisano (Baker Botts L.L.P. ), Houston

For Respondent: Michael D. Wysocki (OWLawyers), Dallas

Read the case summary.

View the case documents.

Cromwell v. Anadarko E&P Onshore, LLC

This case requires the interpretation of an oil-and-gas lease habendum clause.

For Petitioner: Joshua S. Smith (Beck Redden LLP), Houston

For Respondent: Gwen J. Samora (Copeland & Rice LLP), Houston

Read the case summary.

View the case documents.

In re E. Tex. Med. Ctr. Athens

At issue is whether a negligence claim against a nonsubscribing employer is an action to collect workers’ compensation benefits excluded from the scope of the proportionate-liability statute. 

For Relator: David M. Walsh IV (Kershaw Anderson King, PLLC), Dallas

For Real Party in Interest: Lisa Hobbs (Kuhn Hobbs PLLC), Austin

Read the case summary.

View the case documents.

State of Texas v. $3,774.28

At issue in this case is whether, in deciding a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, the trial court should have considered an affidavit that was on file with the court but not attached to the nonmovant’s response.

For Petitioner: Sara B. Baumgardner (Office of the Attorney General), Austin

For Respondents: Kevin A. Isern (Lovell, Isern & Farabough, LLP), Amarillo

Read the case summary.

View the case documents.

Tenaris Bay City Inc. v. Ellisor

This flooding case presents issues related to the legal sufficiency of causation evidence to support negligence claims.

(Justice Huddle and Justice Young not participating.)

For Petitioner: Mark Little (Baker Botts LLP), Houston

For Respondents: I. Nelson Heggen (Law Office of I. Nelson Heggen), Houston

Read the case summary.

View the case documents.

Paxton v. Am. Oversight

At issue is whether trial courts have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus against the Governor and Attorney General to compel information under the Public Information Act.

(Justice Sullivan not participating.)

For Petitioners: Beth Klusmann (Office of the Attorney General), Austin

For Respondent: Catherine Robb (Haynes and Boone, LLP), Austin

Read the case summary.

View the case documents.

In re Oncor Elec. Delivery Co.

At issue is whether the multidistrict litigation court should have dismissed plaintiffs’ gross negligence and intentional nuisance claims against transmission and distribution utility companies.

(Justice Bland and Justice Young not participating.)

For Relators: Michael A. Heidler (Vinson & Elkins LLP), Austin

For Real Parties in Interest: Sherri Ann Saucer (Nachawati Law Group), Dallas

Read the case summary.

View the case documents.

Univ. of Tex. Rio Grande Valley v. Oteka

In this personal‑injury case, the issue on appeal is whether an employee must obtain a predicate finding from the Division of Workers’ Compensation that her injuries did not occur in the course and scope of her employment for the trial court to have subject‑matter jurisdiction over her negligence claim against the employer. 

For Petitioner: J. Red Tripp (Office of the

Attorney General), Austin

For Respondent: Theodore J. Messina, III (The

Messina Law Firm, P.C.), Dallas

Read the case summary.

View the case documents.

Walgreens v. McKenzie

The main issue in this case is whether a party moving to dismiss a negligent‑hiring claim under the Texas Citizens Participation Act meets its initial burden to demonstrate that the TCPA applies when the claim implicates an employee’s exercise of a First Amendment right.

For Petitioner: Phil Griffis (Law Office of Phil

Griffis), Houston

For Respondent: U.A. Lewis (The Lewis Law

Group, PLLC), Houston

Read the case summary.

View the case documents.

Was this email forwarded to you? Click here to subscribe to Supreme Court advisories.

Questions about this email, reply to scotxinfo@txcourts.gov or email Director of Public Affairs Amy Starnes at amy.starnes@txcourts.gov.

Follow Supreme Court news via X @SupremeCourt_TX and LinkedIn at Supreme Court of Texas.