The primary issue in this case is whether substantial compliance is sufficient to avoid termination of parental rights under Section 161.001(b)(1)(O) of the Family Code.

The issue in this case is whether evidence of a causal connection between a parent's drug use and any alleged endangerment of the child is required to terminate a parent's rights under Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E) of the Texas Family Code.

At issue in this case is whether one oil-and-gas company's forced-pooling offer to another, which included a 10% risk penalty, was unreasonably low under the Texas Mineral Interest Pooling Act.

The main issues on appeal are whether Honda defectively designed the seatbelt that caused Sarah Milburn's injuries and whether Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 82.008's rebuttable presumption of nonliability shields Honda from liability.

The issue in this case is whether a trial court's oral rendition of divorce is effective when one spouse dies prior to the entry of a written final decree.

The central question in this case is whether an employer is liable to an employee when that employee is injured while crossing a public roadway that divided the employer's property.

This case presents primarily two issues: (1) whether a newspaper is entitled to a substantial-truth defense despite publishing an article that was not literally true and (2) whether a local prosecutor is a limited-purpose public figure.

Under Chapter 74 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, notice of a healthcare claim must be accompanied by a medical-authorization form that meets statutory requirements, and notice that is "given as provided in this chapter" will toll limitations on the claim for 75 days. The issue in this case is whether a form that does not strictly comply with statutory requirements will toll limitations.