Passion. Preparation. Persistence.

Texas Supreme Court Weekly Update December 18, 2020

On Behalf of | Dec 18, 2020 | Texas Supreme Court Weekly Update

This week the Texas Supreme Court issued five opinions and one grant. This blog discusses one of those opinions, as well as the one grant.

First, in Lion Copolymer Holdings LLC v. Lion Polymers LLC, the Court issued an opinion reversing and remanding a case from Harris County and Houston’s First Court of Appeals. Lion Copolymer Holdings LLC, a member of a limited partnership, complained that the court erred when it allowed deposition testimony that prejudiced its case and by concluding that its briefing to the court of appeals failed to preserve its complaint about the factual sufficiency of the evidence. The Court of appeals held that the petitioner waived its factual sufficiency complaint through bare assertions unsupported by arguments. The Supreme Court of Texas agreed that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the deposition testimony, however the Court held that the company’s briefing did not fail to preserve its complaint about the factual sufficiency of the evidence, even though it intertwined its analysis with a legal sufficiency complaint. The case is remanded for the appellate court to consider petitioner’s factual sufficiency complaint and its effect, if any, on its judgment.

Additionally, on February 24, 2020, the Court is set to hear oral arguments on a petition for writ of mandamus. In re Allstate Indemnity Co., a case out of the Corpus Christi-Edinburg Court of Appeals, involved a car wreck lawsuit in which the Plaintiff served affidavits addressing the reasonableness of medical expenses pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 18.001. Defendants filed a counter-affidavit prepared by one of its experts and following a hearing, the trial court struck the counter-affidavit finding that the nurse’s opinions were unreliable under Texas Rule of Evidence 702. There are two issues the Supreme Court of Texas will address, (1) whether the trial court improperly struck the expert’s counter-affidavit for lacking expertise and (2) whether mandamus relief is appropriate.


FindLaw Network