Don Cruse

On Tuesday afternoon, the Texas Supreme Court issued orders granting six new cases for argument. Three were set for argument March 1, 2011; the other three have not yet been assigned an argument date. (You saw the tweet about it, right?)

What issues were granted? Takings, takings, patent law 1, specificity of new-trial orders, whether a notarized statement is admissible in an administrative proceeding, and yet another case about the scope of the health-care liability statute.

The pattern holds from last month of the Court waiting until about 21 days before the argument date before filling its calendar. 2

Three cases set for March 1, 2011

  • Texas Rice Land Partners Ltd. and Mike Latta v. Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas LLC, No. 09-0901 (DDB). Does this pipeline company — which agreed with the Railroad Commission to carry other people’s products as well as its own — qualify as a “common carrier” so as to be granted eminent domain powers under Texas law? [Rescheduled for April 19, 2011]

  • FPL Farming Ltd. v. Environmental Processing Systems L.C., No. 09‑1010 (DDB). This case is about wastewater injected underground and, when it migrates to a neighboring property, whether that is a trespass. Other issues are whether the permit that authorized the injection creates a shield from liability and whether its issuance was a taking.

  • Vernon F. Minton v. Jerry W. Gunn, et al., No. 10‑0141 (DDB). A question here is whether an unsettled patent-law question that’s folded into a Texas legal malpractice claim is beyond the reach of Texas courts to resolve.

Three cases granted for a future argument date

  • Basith Ghazali, M.D. v. Patricia Brown, No. 10-0232 (DDB). Does the health-care liability act (you know, all the expert-witness-report requirements and the like) apply to laser hair removal?

  • Texas Department of Public Safety v. Stephen Joseph Caruana, No. 10-0321 (DDB). Was an officer’s notarized statement admissible in a license-revocation hearing?

  • In re United Scaffolding Inc., No. 10-0526 (DDB). Was the trial court’s order granting a new trial specific enough? 3

  1. Yes, in state court — that’s actually the question. No, the answer isn’t obvious. ↩

  2. Normally, the Court issues grants of review with its regular Friday orders list. These mid-week orders may in part be a result of the new way that the Court has arranged its calendar. The Court may also be catching up from issuing relatively few grants during the fall. ↩

  3. Osler McCarthy’s email announcement of the grants also included the text of the trial court’s order, so you can form an opinion for yourself:

    After re-considering Plaintiff James and Lisa Levine’s Motion for New Trial, the Court GRANTS the motion and orders New Trial based upon: A. The jury’s answer to question number three (3) is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence; and/or B. The great weight and preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the determined negligence of Defendant was a proximate cause of injury in the past to Plaintiff, James Levine; and/or C. The great weight and preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the determined negligence of Defendant supports an award of past damages; and/or D. In the interest of justice and fairness

    ↩