Principal issues are (1) whether minimum fines to enforce an order to contain groundwater contamination against a limited-liability company and its sole member, based on judgments against both, are unconstitutionally excessive and (2) whether the state can hold both the company and its sole employee liable when the statute forbids a “person” from violating the state water code when the state alleges violations by both.
In this back-injury disability case, alleging negligence against an oil-rig operator, the issues are (1) whether post-injury surveillance video should have been admitted and (2) whether evidence that Diamond paid Williams as much as 85 percent of his salary for several years to temper the jury's award and not, as the trial court decided, to be taken into accounting as an offset against the awarded damages.
In this dog-bite case, by a military-contractor employee against another contractor that supplied bomb-sniffing dogs and its animal supplier, principal issues are (1) whether the trial court erred by designating the Army as a responsible third party (and, if not, whether the injury claims fall under the political-question doctrine); (2) whether the Federal Tort Claims Act's combatant-activities exception preempts the injury claims; (3) whether American K-9 has official immunity by delegation of a government function; (4) whether the trial court erred by denying the plaintiff Freeman her request to replead her claims; and (5) whether the appeals court erred by reversing dismissal of claims against Hill Country Dog Center, which supplied the dogs to American K-9.
In this fraud suit against an attorney, the issues are (1) whether Youngkin proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Hines’s claims are subject to the Texas Citizens Participation Act; (2) whether Hines demonstrated by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case on all essential elements of his claims; and (3) whether Youngkin established by clear and specific evidence his litigation-privilege defense.
The issue is whether mental-anguish damages may be recovered in a negligence action by a son alleging a funeral home illegally cremated his mother’s body when he did not have a contract with the funeral home.
In this deed-construction dispute involving a purported royalty reservation in a conveyance, a principal issue is whether the Duhig rule acts to prevent the grantors from claiming a fractional royalty interest reserved in a warranty deed that was not disclosed in previous conveyances.
The issue in this mandamus to rescind a discovery order is whether Texas evidence rule 503 protects confidential communications between a patent applicant and his non-attorney patent agent authorized to practice law in federal patent proceedings.
The issue in this dispute over a hospital lien, by an uninsured patient contesting the hospital’s bill as unreasonable, is whether the hospital’s payment agreements for insurers and federal Medicare and Medicaid providers may be disclosed as relevant.
The principal issues in this wrongful-death case are (1) whether the Texas Tort Claims Act’s damages cap applies individually and not cumulatively for government contractors and (2) whether a bus driver employed by an independent contractor is a government employee under the Tort Claims Act.
The issues are (1) whether deputy constables have collective-bargaining rights under Local Government Code chapter 174 and, if not, (2) whether a collective-bargaining agreement not authorized by the statute void and unenforceable.
Principal issues are (1) whether a declaratory-judgment action is proper to determine a deed without warranty or an easement’s existence and (2) whether failure to attach evidence to a summary-judgment motion constitutes substantive error requiring reversal.
The issue in this case involving oil-and-gas lease to different parties is whether negligent-misrepresentation and fraud claims fail legally because the lease at issue unambiguously forecloses reliance.
In this dispute over a medical resident’s termination, in which he alleged contract, defamation and tortious-interference claims, a principal issue is whether his amended petition was proper to keep individual UT employees in the suit after the medical school moved to dismiss them under the Tort Claims Act’s election-of-remedies provision.
This contest over a state child-protection case worker’s compensation claim for an injury at home while she worked on case files raises an issue over definition of “issue” in the administrative proceeding: Whether on review the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the state’s statutory basis for denying compensation, that the case worker violated restrictions for working from home, because the alleged violation was not raised as an issue.
In this declaratory action, to interpret a settlement’s standard for cleaning groundwater contaminated by uranium mining, the principal issue is whether “surrounding circumstances” may be shown to help establish the agreement’s baseline standard.
The principal issue is whether the trial court properly dismissed a suit under procedural Rule 91a against the commission, on notice that the suit was filed, because the plaintiff failed to effect service within 90 days.
The issues in this appeal from a dismissal in a medical-malpractice case, based on adequacy of the plaintiff’s expert report, are (1) whether the good-faith effort standard requires a trial court’s conclusions to be reviewed anew as legal matters and (2) whether the trial court’s dismissal without a chance to amend was error.
The principal issue is whether Government Code section 82.065(c) permits attorneys to recover fees in quantum meruit when their oral contingency fee is unenforceable or, if not, whether common-law quantum meruit allows the fees to be recovered....
The principal issues in this rental-equipment appraisal challenge are (1) whether the appeals court’s remand to determine reasonableness improperly relegated to the jury a statute’s constitutionality; (2) whether the appraisal district’s constitutional challenge to Tax Code section 23.1241 is as-applied or facial; and (3) whether this Tax Code section is constitutional.