The primary issues in these cases are whether the Electric Reliability Council of Texas is a "governmental unit" entitled to an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction and whether ERCOT has governmental immunity from suit.

The primary issues in these cases are whether the Electric Reliability Council of Texas is a "governmental unit" entitled to an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction and whether ERCOT has governmental immunity from suit.

The primary issue in this case is whether the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) enjoys governmental immunity.

The issue in this case is whether a hotel may be a residence for purposes of determining venue.

This case presents the question whether an independent investigator is a "lawyer's representative" for purposes of the attorney-client privilege when the investigator is not retained solely for legal advice. (Justice Blacklock not participating)

The issue presented in this case is whether a governmental entity possesses immunity against another co-equal governmental entity's exercise of its eminent domain authority. If immunity exists, an additional question is whether the Legislature has waived that immunity by granting to the condemnor in the Water Code the power to condemn "any land."

The primary issue in this case is whether an insurer's ability to rescind a life insurance policy based on an applicant's material misrepresentation requires proof of the applicant's intent to deceive.

The primary issue in this case concerns the proper standard of review for noneconomic damages in tort cases.

This case, which arises from the collision of a train and a car at a railroad crossing, raises questions of federal preemption, evidentiary sufficiency, and charge error.

The issue in this case is whether an arbitration agreement in a recorded deed runs with the land and therefore binds the home's successive purchasers.

This case concerns a pair of ballot propositions, Propositions 1 and 2, that were submitted to Houston voters in 2004. Both were designed to provide tax relief to city residents. The ordinance submitting them to an election included a "poison pill" provision after the text of Proposition 1. The provision stated that "[i]f another proposition for a Charter amendment relating to limitations in City revenues is approved at the same election at which this proposition is also approved, and if this proposition receives the higher number of favorable votes, then this proposition shall prevail and the other shall not become effective."

This appeal concerns whether the trial court in this personal-injury case erred in excluding evidence, charging the jury, and imposing sanctions (including mid-trial document production) and whether those errors, if any, were harmful.

The issue in this case is whether a title dispute permits a payor of oil-and-gas proceeds to withhold payments without interest under the safe-harbor provision of the Texas Natural Resources Code. The safe-harbor statute permits payors of oil-and-gas proceeds to withhold payments without interest if there is a payee title dispute that would affect distribution of payments or reasonable doubt as to the payee's clear title.

The main issues in this case are whether Texas should recognize a cause of action for educational malpractice and whether a trial court must grant a Rule 91a motion to dismiss any time a novel claim is asserted.

The issue in this case is whether the trial court complied with the statutory requirements for extending its jurisdiction over a suit to terminate parental rights initiated by the Department of Family and Protective Services.

The main issue on appeal is whether Iraan-Sheffield ISD lawfully entered into a contingent-fee agreement with an attorney under Section 6.30(c) of the Texas Tax Code, which authorizes taxing units to hire private counsel on a contingent-fee basis "to represent the unit to enforce the collection of delinquent taxes."

The issues in this case are (1) whether morbid obesity qualifies as a disability under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act if the employer does not regard the obesity as caused by a separate condition; and (2) whether the employer waived attorney-client privilege.

The issues in this case are (1) whether both substantive and procedural unconscionability must be shown to establish that an arbitration agreement is unenforceable; and (2) whether Shattenkirk produced sufficient evidence to establish that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable due to excessive costs.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether Texas courts have personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when that defendant directs its actions toward the United States as a whole, but not Texas specifically.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether Texas courts have personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when that defendant directs its actions toward the United States as a whole, but not Texas specifically.

The primary issue in these cases is whether an executive order barring local mask mandates falls within the scope of authority granted to the Governor under the Texas Disaster Act.

The primary issue in these cases is whether an executive order barring local mask mandates falls within the scope of authority granted to the Governor under the Texas Disaster Act.

The primary issue in these cases is whether an executive order barring local mask mandates falls within the scope of authority granted to the Governor under the Texas Disaster Act.

The issue in this case is whether the trial court should have dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against an investor in a petrochemical manufacturing company under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a.

The issue in this case is whether Exxon Mobil is considered an "additional insured" under National Union's umbrella policy or Starr Indemnity & Liability Insurance's bumbershoot policy.

The issue in this case is whether a resolution by law firm shareholders provides the firm with the power to redeem shares of a former partner for no value.

At issue in this case is whether a statutory county court exercising jurisdiction pursuant to an independent, county-specific statute is subject to the same jurisdictional limitations as if the court were exercising its concurrent constitutional county court jurisdiction.

At issue in this case is whether the Texas Citizens Participation Act applies to legal malpractice claims.

This appeal addresses personal jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer and its U.S. subsidiary.

The issue in this case is who is liable when parties to a settlement agreement place disputed funds in an account controlled by the attorney of one party, and the attorney steals the funds.The CTMI parties and Fischer settled most of their claims arising from a previous dispute over the sale of a tax-consulting business. The settlement agreement provided that CTMI's attorney, Holmes, would hold the disputed funds in an escrow account until the conclusion of the litigation. Whichever party prevailed was entitled to the funds in the account. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled for Fischer. When Fischer went to collect the funds he was entitled to, the parties learned that Holmes had absconded with the money.CTMI sued Fischer for a declaratory judgment that CTMI had fulfilled its obligations under the settlement agreement by placing the disputed funds in Holmes' account. Fischer counterclaimed for breach of contract. The trial court rendered judgment for CTMI, but the court of appeals reversed. A main issue in the court of appeals was whether the settlement agreement created a valid escrow agreement. Relying on caselaw describing an escrow agreement as involving the deposit of funds with a neutral third party, the court held that the settlement agreement did not create an escrow agreement because Holmes was not a neutral third party. The court thus concluded that CTMI had breached the agreement by failing to pay Fischer the amount owed to him.

The issue in this case is whether the statute of limitations is equitably tolled for a plaintiff's subsequent suit after the court dismissed the plaintiff's earlier suit based on its failure to file a statutorily compliant expert certificate.

This case concerns the City of Austin's immunity from premises-defect claims arising from an accident that occurred on a City-owned sidewalk.

The issue in this case is whether harmless error review should apply when a trial court fails to comply with a statutory requirement to interview a child during a divorce proceeding.