A principal issue is whether the review standard should be greater than deference when a trial court grants a special appearance to contest personal jurisdiction without live testimony. In the underlying case Moncrief alleges Gazprom, a Russian company, used trade secrets it acquired in Texas pursuant to negotiating a joint venture with Moncrief to establish a competing gas-production and marketing firm. In response Gazprom says its purpose in the Texas discussions was to settle a related federal lawsuit. Without hearing live testimony, the trial court granted Gazprom's special appearance. The court of appeals affirmed.

The issue in this negligence case seeking sentimental-value damages for a pet dog mistakenly euthanized is whether intrinsic or sentimental value can be recovered.

The issues are (1) whether the Texas Workers' Compensation Division has continuing jurisdiction to consider new evidence challenging lifetime workers-compensation benefits awarded years before and (2) whether the workers-comp insurer is precluded by collateral estoppel or the prior ruling in the case from contesting the lifetime benefits. In this case Liberty Mutual in 2009 sought a new hearing to challenge lifetime-income benefits Adcock was awarded in 1997, alleging new evidence that Adcock's disability was no longer permanent. In the earlier hearing Adcock won the benefits for total and permanent functional loss of a foot and hand. On Liberty Mutual's appeal from a determination that Adcock was still entitled to the benefits, the trial court granted Adcock's summary-judgment motion. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the Legislature intended that the Workers' Compensation Division did not have continuing jurisdiction to review lifetime benefits once awarded.

In this child-support action brought by the state, a principal issue is whether estoppel may be a defense for a father who signed an affidavit terminating his parental rights that he assumed was filed but never was. Sued over as much as $80.000 in unpaid child support, Scholer defended himself by contending he signed the affidavit his ex-wife's attorney prepared in answer Scholer's offer to terminate his rights in a dispute over his access to the child. The affidavit noted his child-support obligation would cease, that he did not want to appear in court or by counsel and that he knew he "may not be further informed about the termination suit" or any other proceedings affecting his son. In a hearing over the past-due support, Scholer testified he assumed his parental rights ended. His ex-wife testified she decided not to follow through with the termination, did not believe she had a duty to tell him and was unaware Scholer signed the affidavit. The trial court ordered Scholer to pay past-due support. The appeals court reversed, holding that estoppel was an available defense in the attorney general's enforcement action.

The principal issues are (1) whether Family Code 3.201's two instances making a spouse liable for the other's debts establish the exclusive means to hold a spouse personally liable for the other spouse's debts; (2) whether the attorney fees for the spouse sued for divorce were necessities; and, if so, (3) whether the other spouse failed to discharge his support duty to make him personally liable for the fees. Tedder’s wife retained the Gardner Aldrich law firm to represent her after Tedder sued for divorce and child custody. Her contract with the firm specified that she would be responsible for the attorney fees but that the firm would seek to collect from Tedder. Tedder paid $50,000 to the firm, but Gardner Aldrich intervened to secure its unpaid fees after the custody decision. The trial court awarded the firm $151,800 for its unpaid fees against the ex-wife and gave her judgment for fees against her ex-husband. Before the divorce decree was signed, however, Tedder and his ex-wife agreed to leave her solely liable for the fees. The trial court's judgment incorporated their agreement. Several days later she filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. On review, the appeals court reversed and rendered judgment against Tedder, holding that the fees were community debt and necessities for which he was jointly and severally liable.

A principal issue in this health care-liability claim is whether the court of appeals erred by remanding for the trial court to consider a second extension to cure a deficiency the appeals court found in an expert report. Moreno sued doctors, nurses and the limited partnership that operates a Denton hospital where Moreno's son allegedly suffered kidney and nerve damage during a forced delivery. After the trial court granted Moreno an extension to cure a deficient expert report, and she submitted another report to address the deficiency, the defendants challenged the reports' sufficiency in an interlocutory appeal. The court of appeals determined that the expert reports were deficient as they regarded direct-liability claims against the hospital and nurses and therefore were deficient on Moreno's vicarious-liability theory against the hospital for the nurses' actions. The appeals court remanded for the trial court to consider giving Moreno time to cure the deficiency. In this interlocutory appeal from that decision, the defendants argue that the state's health-care liability law allows only one extension to cure a deficient report.

Sitting for the court: Justice Paul W. Green, Justice Nathan L. Hecht, Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson, Justice Phil Johnson, Justice David Medina, Justice Dale Wainwright, Justice Don R. Willett, Justice Eva Guzman, Justice Debra Lehrmann

11-0367 City of North Richland Hills v. Laura Friend and Luther Friend from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth For petitioner: Fredrick Wayne “Fritz” Quast, Fort Worth For respondents: Darrell L. Keith, Fort Worth For amicus curiae State of Texas: Rance L. Craft, Austin The principal issues are (1) whether the city waived its immunity when city water-park staff responded to a 12-year-old girl’s heart attack with resuscitation equipment that did not include heart defibrillators available in the park and (2) whether, as in this case, the city and its employees are sued at the same time, the Texas Tort Claims Act bars suit against either or whether the city consented to suit by waiving its immunity under the act. The Friends sued the city after their daughter died. When she collapsed, employees at the city-owned park did not use available defibrillators on her. The Friends argue the city waived its immunity under the theory that the city employees misused tangible personal property because the resuscitation equipment did not contain an integral safety component. The trial court denied the city’s jurisdictional plea. The appeals court affirmed. This advisory serves only as an abbreviated guide to oral argument. Summaries are prepared by the Court's staff attorney for public information and reflect his judgment alone on facts and legal issues and in no way represent the Court's opinion about case merits. Texas Supreme Court advisory Contact: Osler McCarthy, Staff Attorney for Public Information (512) 463.1441 or email: osler.mccarthy@courts.state.tx.us

Sitting for the court: Justice Paul W. Green, Justice Nathan L. Hecht, Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson, Justice Phil Johnson, Justice David Medina, Justice Dale Wainwright, Justice Don R. Willett, Justice Eva Guzman, Justice Debra Lehrmann

11-0255 In re the Office of the Attorney General from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth For relators: Kristofer S. Monson, Austin, and Jessica Hall Janicek, Dallas For real party in interest: Thomas M. Michel, Fort Worth The issue is whether a parent in arrears on child support subject to an enforcement motion may be found in contempt if he paid the due child support covered by the motion but not support he owed in the interim before the motion hearing. In this case the Tarrant County Domestic Relations Office sought as much as $23,000 an ex-husband owed in support for his six children, including payments the office believed he would likely fail to pay. After he was served with the enforcement motion, he paid what he owned in full as of September 2008 and moved for reduction in the $5,400-a-month child-support order. By the hearing in February 2009 he was several months and more than $28,000 behind on his payments. The trial court denied his motion to modify the child-support order and found him in contempt for payments he made in September 2008 that he failed to make before the enforcement motion was filed. The court of appeals held that the trial court could not hold the father in contempt if he was current on all overdue support payments covered by the enforcement motion. This advisory serves only as an abbreviated guide to oral argument. Summaries are prepared by the Court's staff attorney for public information and reflect his judgment alone on facts and legal issues and in no way represent the Court's opinion about case merits. Texas Supreme Court advisory Contact: Osler McCarthy, Staff Attorney for Public Information (512) 463.1441 or email: osler.mccarthy@courts.state.tx.us

Sitting for the court: Justice Paul W. Green, Justice Nathan L. Hecht, Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson, Justice Phil Johnson, Justice David Medina, Justice Dale Wainwright, Justice Don R. Willett, Justice Eva Guzman, Justice Debra Lehrmann

09-0905 This advisory serves only as an abbreviated guide to oral argument. Summaries are prepared by the Court's staff attorney for public information and reflect his judgment alone on facts and legal issues and in no way represent the Court's opinion about case merits. Texas Supreme Court advisory Contact: Osler McCarthy, Staff Attorney for Public Information (512) 463.1441 or email: osler.mccarthy@courts.state.tx.us

Sitting for the court: Justice Paul W. Green, Justice Nathan L. Hecht, Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson, Justice Phil Johnson, Justice David Medina, Justice Dale Wainwright, Justice Don R. Willett, Justice Eva Guzman, Justice Debra Lehrmann

09-0079 Venkateswarlu Thota, M.D., and North Texas Cardiology Center v. Margaret Young from Wichita County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth For petitioners: Diana L. Faust, Dallas For respondents: J. Mark Perrin, Dallas In this medical-malpractice action, a principal issue is whether the trial court erred by submitting a contributory-negligence charge – that a patient’s delay in getting treatment for internal bleeding caused his harm – instead of a damages-mitigation charge. Other issues raise questions about the trial court’s submission of a new-and-independent-cause instruction and on unavoidable accident. Mrs. Young alleges Dr. Thota, who inserted a cardiac catheter in her late husband, negligently punctured the wrong artery. Thota argued either that the internal bleeding was an unavoidable accident or that Mr. Young’s delay in seeking treatment for the post-surgical bleeding caused his injury. (Mr. Young later died of leukemia.) In a broad-form submission combining questions on Thota’s alleged negligence, Young’s alleged contribution and the unavoidable accident and new-and-independent cause theories, the jury assessed all liability to Mr. Young. The court of appeals reversed, holding the trial court’s contributory-negligence instruction was wrong because Mr. Young’s delay in treatment went to mitigating his damages, not negligence. This advisory serves only as an abbreviated guide to oral argument. Summaries are prepared by the Court's staff attorney for public information and reflect his judgment alone on facts and legal issues and in no way represent the Court's opinion about case merits. Texas Supreme Court advisory Contact: Osler McCarthy, Staff Attorney for Public Information (512) 463.1441 or email: osler.mccarthy@courts.state.tx.us

Sitting for the court: Justice Paul W. Green, Justice Nathan L. Hecht, Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson, Justice Phil Johnson, Justice David Medina, Justice Dale Wainwright, Justice Don R. Willett, Justice Eva Guzman, Justice Debra Lehrmann

10-0776 Jack Edward Milner v. Vicki Ann Milner from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth For petitioner: Jeff Kobs, Fort Worth For respondent: Rebecca Tillery, Dallas In this appeal from a contest over property division, the principal issues are (1) whether a mediated settlement conveyed the husband’s partnership in companies or just assigned rights to his interests; (2) whether contract law requirements – particularly a meeting of the minds – applies to enforcing a mediated settlement agreement; and (3) whether the divorce decree altered the settlement agreement by allegedly omitting substantive terms and conditions of the settlement. Upon divorce, Jack Milner agreed in a mediated settlement to convey to Vicki Milner his partnership interests in two limited partnerships. The settlement included consent signatures for Jack Milner’s other partners because the partnership agreements required all partners agree to take on a new partner. One partner refused. When Vicki Milner tried to withdraw her consent to the medicated settlement, Jack Milner moved for an agreed final divorce decree that did not reference the other partners’ necessary consent. After the trial court entered judgment on the mediated settlement and approved the final decree, Vicki Milner moved for a new trial, arguing that the final decree did not properly reflect the mediated settlement. The trial court denied the new-trial motion. The court of appeals reversed, holding in part that mediated settlement satisfied statutory requirements but not the mutual-consent requirement of contract law. This advisory serves only as an abbreviated guide to oral argument. Summaries are prepared by the Court's staff attorney for public information and reflect his judgment alone on facts and legal issues and in no way represent the Court's opinion about case merits. Texas Supreme Court advisory Contact: Osler McCarthy, Staff Attorney for Public Information (512) 463.1441 or email: osler.mccarthy@courts.state.tx.us

Sitting for the court: Justice Paul W. Green, Justice Nathan L. Hecht, Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson, Justice Phil Johnson, Justice David Medina, Justice Dale Wainwright, Justice Don R. Willett, Justice Eva Guzman, Justice Debra Lehrmann

10-0687 In re Frank Kent Motor Co. from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth For relator: Robert Ruotolo, Dallas For real party in interest: Timothy G. Chovanec, Fort Worth The issue is whether an employee may avoid a signed jury waiver in an employment handbook by claiming the waiver resulted from duress or coercion. Valdez, an ex-employee, sued Frank Kent for wrongful termination, claiming he was fired because of his age, and sought a jury trial. Frank Kent moved to strike the jury demand because Valdez had signed a jury waiver for any employment disputes a year before he was fired. Valdez countered the motion to strike with an affidavit attesting that his supervisor told him he would be fired if he did not sign the waiver. The trial court denied the company’s motion to strike. On the company’s mandamus petition, the appeals court denied relief. This advisory serves only as an abbreviated guide to oral argument. Summaries are prepared by the Court's staff attorney for public information and reflect his judgment alone on facts and legal issues and in no way represent the Court's opinion about case merits. Texas Supreme Court advisory Contact: Osler McCarthy, Staff Attorney for Public Information (512) 463.1441 or email: osler.mccarthy@courts.state.tx.us

Sitting for the court: Justice Paul W. Green, Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson, Justice Phil Johnson, Justice David Medina, Justice Dale Wainwright, Justice Don R. Willett, Justice Eva Guzman, Justice Debra Lehrmann

(Justice Hecht not sitting) 10-0141 Vernon F. Minton v. Jerry W. Gunn, et al. from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth For petitioner: Mr. Thomas M. Michel, Fort Worth For respondents: Mr. David Keltner, Fort Worth A principal issue is whether the controlling question in this legal-malpractice suit arising from a patent-enforcement case is a substantial patent issue that must be answered exclusively by a federal court, that is, whether an exception (experimental-use doctrine) to a defense (“on sale” bar rule) could apply in the underlying patent litigation. Minton sued his attorneys for alleged malpractice, claiming he lost $100 million as a result of their failure to plead an exception to a defense. In the first suit, Minton sued to enforce a patent for an online stock-trading program. The trial court in that litigation granted summary judgment for the defendants because Minton supposedly offered his program for sale more than a year before applying for a patent. By itself, that would trigger the on-sale bar rule, which invalidates a patent if the product is offered for sale for commercial use more than a year before the patent application. The question in this case is whether Minton’s attorneys failed to plead the exception to that rule, the experimental-use doctrine. Under the exception, a product offered for test or experiment more than a year before a patent application can negate the on-sale bar rule. The court of appeals affirmed, holding in part that the case presented factual questions, not issues requiring federal court interpretation that would control the state malpractice suit. This advisory serves only as an abbreviated guide to oral argument. Summaries are prepared by the Court's staff attorney for public information and reflect his judgment alone on facts and legal issues and in no way represent the Court's opinion about case merits. Texas Supreme Court advisory Contact: Osler McCarthy, Staff Attorney for Public Information (512) 463.1441 or email: osler.mccarthy@courts.state.tx.us

Sitting for the court: Justice Paul W. Green, Justice Nathan L. Hecht, Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson, Justice Phil Johnson, Justice David Medina, Justice Dale Wainwright, Justice Don R. Willett, Justice Eva Guzman

(Justice Lehrmann not sitting) 10-0238 In re Universal Underwriters of Texas Insurance Co. from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth For relator: Don Martinson, Dallas For real party in interest: Scott M. Keller, Dallas For amicus curiae Texas Trial Lawyers Association: Peter M. Kelly, Houston The issue in this insurance dispute is whether Universal waived its right to appraisal either by not invoking it at the time the parties were disputing a claim valuation or when it sent a letter to the claimant advising him of limitations on a lawsuit if he chose to sue. Grubbs Infiniti sued Universal for breaching the insurance contract after Universal paid for hail damage Grubbs claimed for its roof. Universal initially paid the hail-damage claim but not on the roof until Grubbs requested the roof’s additional inspection. When Grubbs sued, Universal moved to abate and to compel appraisal under the policy’s appraisal provision. The trial court denied the motions and the court of appeals denied the insurer’s mandamus petition. This advisory serves only as an abbreviated guide to oral argument. Summaries are prepared by the Court's staff attorney for public information and reflect his judgment alone on facts and legal issues and in no way represent the Court's opinion about case merits. Texas Supreme Court advisory Contact: Osler McCarthy, Staff Attorney for Public Information (512) 463.1441 or email: osler.mccarthy@courts.state.tx.us

Sitting for the court: Justice Paul W. Green, Justice Nathan L. Hecht, Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson, Justice Phil Johnson, Justice David Medina, Justice Dale Wainwright, Justice Don R. Willett, Justice Eva Guzman, Justice Debra Lehrmann

09-0497 Tyler Scoresby, M.D. v. Catarino Santillan from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth For petitioner Tyler Scoresby: Michael A. Yanof, Dallas For petitioner Yadranko Ducic, M.D.: David L. Pratt and Randy J. Hall, Fort Worth For respondent: Jason C. N. Smith, Art Brender and Eric Reyes, Fort Worth In this appeal from a trial court’s failure to dismiss a health-care liability suit, a principal issue is whether an expert report can be so deficient in addressing the elements of a claim that it constitutes no report at all, requiring dismissal instead of an extension to cure the defects. Santillan sued over alleged mistakes during surgery on a minor son’s nasal tumors that led to bleeding and his partial paralysis. Dr. Scoresby, an ear-nose-throat surgeon, moved to dismiss the claim because Santillan’s expert report, by a neurologist, did not establish a care standard, show how the standard was breached or how the breach caused the son’s injuries. The report also did not include the expert’s credentials. Instead of dismissing the suit, the trial granted a 30-day statutory extension to cure a deficient report. Scoresby appealed that ruling, arguing to the court of appeals, as he does in this Court, that the expert report amounted to no report at all, requiring dismissal. The appeals court dismissed the doctor’s interlocutory appeal, holding that an extension to cure a deficient report could not be reviewed. This advisory serves only as an abbreviated guide to oral argument. Summaries are prepared by the Court's staff attorney for public information and reflect his judgment alone on facts and legal issues and in no way represent the Court's opinion about case merits. Texas Supreme Court advisory Contact: Osler McCarthy, Staff Attorney for Public Information (512) 463.1441 or email: osler.mccarthy@courts.state.tx.us

Sitting for the court: Justice Paul W. Green, Justice Nathan L. Hecht, Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson, Justice Phil Johnson, Justice David Medina, Justice Dale Wainwright, Justice Don R. Willett, Justice Eva Guzman, Justice Harriet O'Neill

09-0432 In re Olshan Foundation Repair Co., LLC, and Olshan Foundation Repair Co. of Dallas, Ltd. from Wise County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth consolidated for oral argument with 09-0433, 09-0474 and 09-0703 For relators: Stephan B. Rogers, Boerne For real parties in interest: Todd Lipscomb, San Antonio The principal issues are (1) whether in a dispute over home repairs the Federal Arbitration Act applies in an arbitration agreement specifying application of Texas law but that does not exclude federal law and (2) whether claims of Texas Home Solicitation Act violations should be arbitrated or decided by a court. In these cases homeowners sued Olshan based on engineering reports, written by the same engineer, concluding Olshan had not properly repaired their foundations. In three of the cases choice-of-law provisions in the contracts stipulated binding arbitration “pursuant to the arbitration laws in your state.” Homeowners in those case argue that the federal arbitration statute does not apply, rendering the arbitration provisions unenforceable under Texas law (Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 171.002) because the contracts were not signed by the parties and their attorneys. The trial courts denied Olshan’s plea to abate and compel arbitration in each case and the courts of appeals denied mandamus relief in each. The first argument begins at 9 a.m. in the courtroom in Austin. Each side will have 20 minutes for argument. This advisory serves only as an abbreviated guide to oral argument. Summaries are prepared by the Court’s staff attorney for public information and reflect his judgment alone on facts and legal issues and in no way represent the Court’s opinion about case merits. Texas Supreme Court advisory Contact: Osler McCarthy, Staff Attorney for Public Information (512) 463.1441 or email: osler.mccarthy@courts.state.tx.us

Sitting for the court: Justice Paul W. Green, Justice Nathan L. Hecht, Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson, Justice Phil Johnson, Justice David Medina, Justice Dale Wainwright, Justice Don R. Willett, Justice Scott A. Brister, Justice Harriet O'Neill

07-0205 Waffle House Inc. v. Cathie Williams from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth For petitioner: Mark Emery, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Susan E. Hutchison, S. Rafe Foreman, Grapevine The issues are (1) whether the court of appeals erred in its definition of the duty owed by Waffle House to an employee in a negligent supervision and retention suit based on sexual harassment allegations and (2) whether legally sufficient evidence supported the jury’s punitive-damages award. The first argument begins at 9 a.m. in the courtroom in Austin. Each side will have 20 minutes for argument. This advisory serves only as an abbreviated guide to oral argument. Summaries are prepared by the Court’s staff attorney for public information and reflect his judgment alone on facts and legal issues and in no way represent the Court’s opinion about case merits. Texas Supreme Court advisory Contact: Osler McCarthy, Staff Attorney for Public Information (512) 463.1441 or email: osler.mccarthy@courts.state.tx.us

Sitting for the court: Justice Paul W. Green, Justice Nathan L. Hecht, Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson, Justice Phil Johnson, Justice David Medina, Justice Dale Wainwright, Justice Don R. Willett, Justice Scott A. Brister, Justice Harriet O'Neill

08-0262 Roy Kenji Yamada, M.D. v. Laura Friend, et al. from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth For petitioner: Kevin Carey, Fort Worth For respondent: Jeff Kobs, Fort Worth The principal issues are (1) whether this action, claiming wrongful death because defibrillators were negligently placed and improperly used by employees of a municipal water park, should be considered a health care-liability claim and (2) whether the court of appeals erred by dividing allegations into health-care and ordinary negligence claims. In this case a 12-year-old girl collapsed at a municipal water park of a heart attack attributed to cardiac-muscle disease. Her parents sued the city then added Yamada, who provided consultant medical services to the water park, because park employees improperly used a defibrillator. Yamada moved to dismiss the claim against him, arguing that the girl’s parents did not file an expert report as required in a health-care liability claim. He based that on a statutory definition of a health-care liability claim as one “for treatment, lack of treatment, or other claimed departure from accepted standards of medical care ... or safety or professional or administrative services directly related to health care....” The trial court denied the dismissal motion. On interlocutory review, the court of appeals affirmed the denial for claims it considered ordinary negligence and separated those from health-care liability claims that required an expert report. The first argument begins at 9 a.m. in the courtroom in Austin. Each side will have 20 minutes for argument. This advisory serves only as an abbreviated guide to oral argument. Summaries are prepared by the Court’s staff attorney for public information and reflect his judgment alone on facts and legal issues and in no way represent the Court’s opinion about case merits. Texas Supreme Court advisory Contact: Osler McCarthy, Staff Attorney for Public Information (512) 463.1441 or email: osler.mccarthy@courts.state.tx.us

Sitting for the court: Justice Paul W. Green, Justice Nathan L. Hecht, Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson, Justice Phil Johnson, Justice David Medina, Justice Dale Wainwright, Justice Don R. Willett, Justice Scott A. Brister, Justice Harriet O'Neill

08-0093 In re Gayle E. Coppock from Denton County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth For relator: William E. Trantham, Denton For real party in interest: Amie S. Peace, Dan C. Coffey, Denton The issues in this habeas corpus proceeding involving an ex-spouse found in contempt for “coarse or offensive” communications are (1) whether the divorce decree ordered or commanded no coarse or offensive communication and, if so, (2) whether that would be an unconstitutional prior restraint on the ex-spouse’s free speech or void for vagueness and (3) whether the trial court order substantively changed its decree after it lost jurisdiction to do so. The first argument begins at 9 a.m. in the courtroom in Austin. Each side will have 20 minutes for argument. This advisory serves only as an abbreviated guide to oral argument. Summaries are prepared by the Court’s staff attorney for public information and reflect his judgment alone on facts and legal issues and in no way represent the Court’s opinion about case merits. Texas Supreme Court advisory Contact: Osler McCarthy, Staff Attorney for Public Information (512) 463.1441 or email: osler.mccarthy@courts.state.tx.us

Sitting for the court: Justice Paul W. Green, Justice Nathan L. Hecht, Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson, Justice Phil Johnson, Justice David Medina, Justice Dale Wainwright, Justice Don R. Willett, Justice Scott A. Brister, Justice Harriet O'Neill

07-0541 TXI Transportation Co., et al. v. Randy Hughes, et al. from Wise County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth For petitioners: Reagan W. Simpson, Houston For respondents: Brian Stagner, Fort Worth The Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether evidence that driver in collision was illegal immigrant was properly admitted. The principal issues are (1) whether evidence that a truck driver involved in a fatal truck-SUV collision was an illegal immigrant was properly admitted for impeachment purposes; (2) whether the trial court improperly overruled a Batson challenge over the only Hispanic venireman struck; (3) whether the trial court improperly excluded defense testimony from a state trooper regarding a tire blowout that might have contributed to cause the accident or cell phone records showing an incoming call to the SUV driver at the time of the accident; and (4) whether the trial court improperly allowed claims for wrongful death of unborn children (the verdict on those claims was not included in the judgment). The Court will hear three arguments beginning at 9 a.m. in the Hillcrest Classroom in the Underwood Law Library at Southern Methodist University‘s Dedman School of Law in Dallas. Each side in each case will have 20 minutes for argument. This advisory serves only as an abbreviated guide to oral argument. Summaries are prepared by the Court’s staff attorney for public information and reflect his judgment alone on facts and legal issues and in no way represent the Court’s opinion about case merits. Texas Supreme Court advisory Contact: Osler McCarthy, Staff Attorney for Public Information (512) 463.1441 or email: osler.mccarthy@courts.state.tx.us

Sitting for the court: Justice Paul W. Green, Justice Nathan L. Hecht, Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson, Justice Phil Johnson, Justice David Medina, Justice Dale Wainwright, Justice Don R. Willett, Justice Scott A. Brister, Justice Harriet O'Neill

07-0123 Dennis L. Miga v. Ronald L. Jensen from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth For petitioner: Jeffrey Levinger, Dallas For respondent: Warren W. Harris, Houston The Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether restitution is appropriate when judgment leading to a Rule 11 payment agreement is later reversed. The issue is whether restitution is appropriate when a party tenders payment under a Rule 11 agreement and the judgment leading to the agreement is later reversed on appeal. In this case Miga sued Jensen for breach of a stock-option agreement. He won a jury verdict, which the court of appeals affirmed. At that time Miga and Jensen agreed that Jensen would tender $23.4 million to the trial court to stem post-judgment interest. Under the agreement, Miga could withdraw from the account unconditionally. In an appeal of that judgment to this Court, the Court reversed for calculation of lost stock profits in the damages. Jensen then sued for restitution of the money tendered under the Rule 11 agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment for Jensen and a split court of appeals affirmed. The first argument begins at 9 a.m. in the courtroom in Austin. Each side will have 20 minutes for argument. This advisory serves only as an abbreviated guide to oral argument. Summaries are prepared by the Court’s staff attorney for public information and reflect his judgment alone on facts and legal issues and in no way represent the Court’s opinion about case merits. Texas Supreme Court advisory Contact: Osler McCarthy, Staff Attorney for Public Information (512) 463.1441 or email: osler.mccarthy@courts.state.tx.us

Sitting for the court: Justice Paul W. Green, Justice Nathan L. Hecht, Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson, Justice Phil Johnson, Justice David Medina, Justice Dale Wainwright, Justice Don R. Willett, Justice Scott A. Brister, Justice Harriet O'Neill

06-0418 HCBeck Ltd. v. Charles Rice from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth For petitioner: David Rodriguez Weiner, Dallas For respondent: Paul Boudloche, Fort Worth The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the issue of whether contractor is immune because construction-site owner pays workers comp premiums for subcontractor’s employee. The principal issue is whether a general contractor has “provided” workers compensation insurance when the construction-site owner pays premiums for a subcontractor’s insurance. In this case the site owner paid workers comp premiums for HCBeck employees and for those of a subcontractor, Greer, that HCBeck hired. Its contract with HCBeck, the owner reserved the right to provide workers comp insurance for HCBeck and subcontractors but, if not provided, required that HCBeck buy the insurance from the owner’s designated agent. The contract required subcontractors to comply with its terms. Greer, the subcontractor, was not an additional insured under HCBeck’s policy. When Rice, the subcontractor’s employee, sued HCBeck for negligence over a job injury, HCBeck argued that Rice was a “deemed employee” and that HCBeck was immune because Rice’s exclusive remedy was workers comp. The trial court granted summary judgment for HCBeck, but the court of appeals reversed on the immunity issue.

Sitting for the court: Justice Paul W. Green, Justice Nathan L. Hecht, Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson, Justice Phil Johnson, Justice David Medina, Justice Dale Wainwright, Justice Don R. Willett, Justice Scott A. Brister, Justice Harriet O'Neill

06-0127 William Chu v. Chong Hui Hong from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth For petitioner: Murry B. Cohen, Houston For respondent: G. Stanley Cramb, Bedford The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the issue of whether third party can be liable in tort under Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. A principal issue arising from this divorce proceeding is whether an independent tort claim exists against a third party under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act when the alleged misconduct was fraud on the marital community. This case challenges a husband’s sale of a doughnut store without his wife’s consent as part-owner, allegedly with Chu’s help in his capacity as attorney for the buyers. After the sale, the husband transferred the proceeds to Korean relatives before he then filed for divorce. Hong, the ex-wife, sued her ex-husband for divorce and Chu as a third party for fraud on the community estate. Jurors awarded damages for lost value and lost profits for the shop and $1.5 million in punitive damages against Chu. The court of appeals affirmed.

Sitting for the court: Justice Paul W. Green, Justice Nathan L. Hecht, Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson, Justice Phil Johnson, Justice David Medina, Justice Dale Wainwright, Justice Don R. Willett, Justice Scott A. Brister, Justice Harriet O'Neill

In the Matter of H.V. from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth For petitioner Tarrant County District Attorney: David M. Curl, Fort Worth For respondent: Michael Shawn Matlock, Fort Worth. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the issue of whether juvenile’s request to call his mother was unequivocal request for lawyer and, if so, whether weapon discovered from statement was admissible. The issues in this murder case against a juvenile are (1) whether the boy’s request to call his mother to seek an attorney was an unambiguous invocation of his right to counsel and (2) whether a gun found based on information in a suppressed statement was properly excluded as the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” In this case H.V., a 16-year-old Bosnian immigrant who had been in the United States four years, was arrested as he tried to carry a bloody carpet from his house while police had the home sealed as they waited for a search warrant. In custody, a magistrate read H.V. his rights for a second time that day (this time he refused to sign a written warning). When he asked to call his mother so she could call an attorney, the magistrate told him that his only options were to ask for an attorney, make a statement to police or not make one. H.V. told the magistrate he was “only 16.” The magistrate assured him that he could ask for an attorney if he wanted an attorney. H.V. then consented to talk with investigators. The trial court ruled that his request to call his mother was an unequivocal request for counsel and ordered his statement suppressed and the gun inadmissible as evidence. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the gun was inadmissible because it was obtained as a result of police failure to honor his request for an attorney, not a mere failure to warn him of his rights.

Sitting for the court: Justice Paul W. Green, Justice Nathan L. Hecht, Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson, Justice Phil Johnson, Justice David Medina, Justice Dale Wainwright, Justice Don R. Willett, Justice Scott A. Brister, Justice Harriet O'Neill

Pleasant Glade Assembly of God, et al. v. Laura Schubert from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth For petitioners: David M. Pruessner, Dallas For respondent: William O. Wuester, Fort Worth. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the issue of whether mental-anguish damages may be awarded for post-traumatic stress. The principal issues in this false-imprisonment and assault case are (1) whether mental-anguish damages may be awarded based on a post-traumatic stress diagnosis and (2) whether the expert testimony on post-traumatic stress syndrome was reliable. In this case, the daughter of an Assembly of God missionary alleged that members and ministers of a Colleyville church unlawfully restrained her when she was 17 for two hours on two occasions by holding her down and praying over her. In the first instance she told church members she saw a “vision,” then collapsed. She claims she was carried into a church classroom and, kicking and screaming, held against her will as church members and a youth minister prayed over her. Three days later church members allegedly found her in a fetal position, took her to a room again and held her “spread eagle” against her will. Her parents initially sued on her behalf for battery and false imprisonment, claiming damages for personal injuries, mental anguish and post-traumatic stress. Defendants contend her mental anguish resulted from traumatic experiences in Africa and argue that she should not have been allowed to recover damages for mental anguish and that her expert testimony on post-traumatic stress disorder was not reliable. A jury awarded damages for mental anguish, admitting evidence of post-traumatic stress. The court of appeals affirmed in part, but reversed on damages awarded for future earnings.

Sitting for the court: Justice Paul W. Green, Justice Nathan L. Hecht, Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson, Justice Phil Johnson, Justice David Medina, Justice Dale Wainwright, Justice Don R. Willett, Justice Scott A. Brister, Justice Harriet O'Neill

06-0247 Ulico Casualty Co. v. Allied Pilots Association from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth For petitioner: Donald Colleluori, Dallas For respondent: B. Daniel Berryman, Fort Worth Principal issues are (1) whether an exception exists to the general rule that an insurer has no liability for defense costs for a claim after a policy’s expiration when the insurer told the policyholder it would pay the costs and, if such an exception exists, (2) whether the court of appeals erred by characterizing the claim as one for contract breach for which attorneys fees can be awarded. In this case Ulico sued Allied for a declaration that it did not owe Allied defense costs in a suit Allied won. Allied had filed a claim when it was sued, in a separate suit, but filed it after its policy with Ulico expired. Despite that, Ulico told Allied that it would pay for Allied’s defense in a letter that reserved its rights to contest coverage. In a subsequent letter the insurer restated that it would pay defense expenses “pursuant to” the earlier “reservation of rights” letter. The trial court awarded defense costs to Allied, based on waiver and estoppel – that Ulico had given up its right to deny defense costs by assuring Allied that its defense would be paid for. The court of appeals affirmed.

Sitting for the court: Justice Paul W. Green, Justice Nathan L. Hecht, Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson, Justice Phil Johnson, Justice David Medina, Justice Dale Wainwright, Justice Don R. Willett, Justice Scott A. Brister, Justice Harriet O'Neill

05-0882 Perry Homes, et al. v. Robert E. Cull and S. Jane Cull from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth The principal issues are (1) whether a defendant must show prejudice to establish that plaintiffs waived their arbitration rights and (2) whether the defendant is prejudiced by the plaintiffs’ pretrial discovery that would not have been available in arbitration. In this case the Culls initially resisted arbitration of their complaints against Perry Homes about construction defects. The Culls argued that arbitration was unconscionable because the chosen arbitration procedure was expensive and biased. After they pursued discovery for close to a year before trial, the Culls then moved for arbitration. Perry opposed their motion, contending the Culls had waived their right to arbitrate. The trial court granted the Culls’ motion. Perry challenged the Culls’ arbitration award, but the trial court confirmed it and the court of appeals affirmed.