At issue in this case is whether a court of appeals can abuse its discretion by declining to hear a permissive interlocutory appeal without providing its reasoning.

This whistleblower dispute asks (1) what constitutes a covered report for purposes of the Texas Whistleblower Act, (2) whether the alleged report was based on an objectively reasonable belief that criminal activity had occurred, and (3) whether there was legally sufficient evidence that the report caused an adverse employment action.

The question presented in this case is whether attorney immunity applies to an alleged violation of both the Texas Wiretap Act, Texas Penal Code § 16.02(b), and the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1).

This declaratory judgment suit addressed whether a property's deed

This suit involves the interpretation of a mineral lease and asks (1) whether the lease's offset production clause created a general duty to protect against all drainage, even when the allegedly draining well did not trigger the duty; (2) whether the court of appeals relied on an argument barred by res judicata; (3) whether there was a fact dispute about the existence of drainage; and (4) whether the court of appeals erred by reversing a summary judgment on unchallenged claims.

The issue in this case is whether a sales executive who negotiated a long-term contract but was terminated before any sales were made is entitled to a million-dollar commission. Baylor Miraca Genetics Laboratories hired Brandon Perthuis to help develop genetic tests and serve as the company’s head of sales. Perthuis's employment agreement stated "Your commission will be 3.5% of your net sales" but did not define "net sales" or explain the parameters of the commission structure.

This tax dispute centers on the classification of stop-loss insurance issued to employers with self-funded health benefit plans. Health Care Service Corporation, d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas (BCBS) offers stop-loss insurance policies to employers that self-fund their employee's health benefit plans. Because employee

At issue in this case is whether there was legally sufficient evidence to support a jury's finding that a doctor's negligence caused a young girl's suicide.

These cases, consolidated for briefing, raise two issues. First, they concern whether misnumbering and misfiling a timely motion for new trial constitutes proper grounds for dismissal of the subsequent appeal as untimely. Second, they address whether transferee courts of appeals should apply principles of horizontal stare decisis when identifying a transferor court's controlling precedent.

These cases, consolidated for briefing, raise two issues. First, they concern whether misnumbering and misfiling a timely motion for new trial constitutes proper grounds for dismissal of the subsequent appeal as untimely. Second, they address whether transferee courts of appeals should apply principles of horizontal stare decisis when identifying a transferor court's controlling precedent.

This is a suit challenging the CA's ruling that two municipal taxpayers lacked taxpayer standing to challenge Houston City Officials alleged illegal misallocation of their property tax proceeds.