|
|  |
Supreme Court of Texas
Oral Argument
Schedule
| |
|
The Supreme Court of Texas will hold oral arguments beginning at 9 a.m. on October 3, 4, and 5. Below is the schedule of cases.
Oral arguments are streamed live and preserved on the Supreme Court's YouTube page. The public may also attend in person in the Supreme Court courtroom, 201 W. 14th St., Austin.
| |
The issue in this case is whether a jury finding that the operation of chicken farms was a temporary nuisance precluded the trial court from issuing a permanent injunction. | |
For Petitioners: Wallace B. Jefferson (Alexander Dubose & Jefferson, LLP), Austin
For Respondents: Keith Dollahite (M. Keith Dollahite, P.C.), Tyler
| |
The primary issue in this case is whether the defendant is entitled to a settlement credit under the one-satisfaction rule. | |
For Petitioner: Brandy Wingate Voss (Law Offices of Brandy Wingate Voss, PLLC), Edinburg
For Respondent: Samuel V. Houston, III (Houston Dunn, PLLC), San Antonio
| |
Morath v. Lampasas Indep. Sch. Dist. | This case concerns whether the Commissioner of Education has jurisdiction to review a petition to detach territory from one school district and annex it to another. | |
For Petitioners: Beth Klusmann (Office of the Solicitor General of Texas), Austin
For Respondent: David Hansen (Eichelbaum Wardell Hansen Powell & Munoz, P.C.), Austin
| |
Wednesday, October 4, 2023 | |
City of Dallas v. Emps.' Ret. Fund | The issues in this case are (1) whether requiring the board of a pension fund to approve amendments to the city code is an improper delegation of authority; and (2) whether an ordinance that changes one part of the city code constitutes an amendment to another part of the code. | |
For Petitioner: Kathleen M. Fones (Dallas City Attorney's Office), Dallas
For Respondent: Thomas F. Loose (Locke Lord LLP), Dallas
Amicus Curiae, The State of Texas: Bill Davis (Office of the Solicitor General of Texas), Austin
| |
Tex. Health & Hum. Servs. Comm’n v. Estate of Burt | At issue in this case is whether the Texas Health and Human Services Commission reasonably interpreted the Medicaid “home” exclusion as requiring applicants asserting the exclusion to have previously occupied the property. | |
For Petitioner: Natalie D. Thompson (Office of the Solicitor General of Texas), Austin
For Respondents: Jacob A. Hale (The Hale Law Firm, P.C.), Waxahachie
| |
Rodriguez v. Safeco Ins. Co. | This certified question asks whether an insurer’s payment of the full appraisal award plus any possible statutory interest precludes recovery of attorney’s fees. | |
For Appellant: Melissa Waden Wray (Daly & Black, P.C.), Houston
For Appellee: Mark D. Tillman (Tillman Batchelor LLP), Irving
Amici Curiae, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Texans for Lawsuit
Reform, and The American Tort Reform Association: Kyle D. Hawkins (Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP), Austin
| |
Thursday, October 5, 2023 | |
Scott & White Mem'l Hosp. v. Thompson | The main issue on appeal is whether the court of appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s order granting summary judgment on a retaliation claim by failing to properly analyze causation. | |
For Petitioners: Ryan C. Bueche (Germer Beaman & Brown, PLLC), Austin
For Respondent: Iain G. Simpson (Simpson, P.C.), from Houston
| |
The issue in this case is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered a sweeping forensic examination of electronic storage devices as a discovery sanction. | |
For Relators: Matt A. Kelley (Howry, Breen & Herman, LLP), Austin
For Real Party in Interest: Ryan D.V. Greene (Terrill & Waldrop), Austin
| |
In this healthcare-liability claim arising from an emergency physician’s treatment of a snakebite, the main issue is whether the plaintiff has produced some evidence of “willful and wanton negligence” by the physician, as required by statute. | |
For Petitioner: David M. Walsh IV (Kershaw Anderson King, PLLC), Dallas
For Respondents: Todd Turner (The Turner Law Firm), Dallas
| | | | |
