In this employment retaliation case the principal issues are (1) whether the employee alleging age- and gender-discrimination engaged in protected activity when she complained by email and (2) whether legally sufficient evidence established a causal link between the email and her discharge.

In this challenge by Dallas teachers over the effects of a new district evaluation process the issues are (1) whether the appeals court erred by determining the commissioner had jurisdiction over the teachers' appeal because their grievance was filed on time; (2) whether the appeals court erred by holding that the teachers' appraisal grievances and grievances based on the district's new evaluation components were filed on time; and (3) whether the appeals courts erred by finding the teachers' exceptions to the administrative-law judge's proposal for decision inadequate to preserve error on allegations that the teachers' pay was reduced by higher insurance costs at a time when they could not resign without penalty.

In this case alleging negligence based on patent representations in a previous sale, the issues are (1) whether a third party's attack on the patents' validity strips the Court of jurisdiction and, if not, (2) whether attorney immunity applies to the business-transactions context.

In this case, seeking cancellation of a warrant deed, the principal issue is whether the party moving for summary judgment based on limitations carries the burden to disprove that limitations is tolled by the unsound-mind provision.

Principal issues in this underinsured-motorist claim are (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion by compelling deposition of USAA corporate representatives before the injured driver got a judicial determination of preconditions establishing the insurer's liability and, if not, (2) whether the requested deposition topics are overly broad.

In this discovery dispute the issues are (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion by compelling Texas Millwork to produce an independent contractor as a witness when the company did not employ him or arguably control him: (2) whether civil procedural rule 199.3 requires the witness's employment or control when the company is ordered to produce him; and (3) whether an adequate appellate remedy exists to avoid mandamus relief.