Blog

Posts tagged "Supreme Court"

United States v. Jones: The Supreme Court to Decide if Government Needs Warrant to Track a Suspect Using GPS

With the rapid advances in technology, it's no surprise that the law has been slow to address the possible reaches these new techniques and devices may have on individuals. However, with United States v. Jones currently pending before the Supreme Court, the law may be close to catching up.

Supreme Court Rules against Patients Again

The Texas Supreme Court ruled recently that, in certain circumstances, a defendant who has been sued can blame a health care provider, but the patient cannot. The opinion was issued in Molinet v. Kimbrell, et al., ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. 2011).

Supreme Court Rules Against Employee

Recently, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that a worker was required to arbitrate her employment discrimination claims against her employer even though she was an "at-will" employee. Normally, an employer cannot take away an employee's rights to bring a claim in the Texas court system unless the agreement to arbitrate has "consideration." That term means that the employer has given value in order to compel arbitration. Here, the employee was an "at-will" employee, and so the employer could fire her at any time for any cause (other than for an illegal reason, such as one based upon age, religion, or race). She therefore argued that the employer gave no consideration to remove her right to pursue a lawsuit. The Supreme Court disagreed.

Supreme Court Rules Against Texas Consumers

The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled against Texas consumers of electricity. The case was Texas Industrial Energy Consumers v. CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC, ___ S.W.3d ___, (Tex. 2010), and the opinion was handed down on October 22, 2010.
During the deregulation of electricity, Reliant Energy was divided into an electrical generation company, a retail provider, and CenterPoint, a transmission and distribution company. Electrical providers were allowed to recovery certain "stranded" costs including interest, as well as the costs of a "valuation panel" incurred when presenting the claim. Here, over the objection of consumers' groups, the Supreme Court affirmed a ruling for CenterPoint by the Public Utility Commission. That ruling allows CenterPoint to recover - and pass along to consumers - an imputed interest rate in excess of 11%. In addition, it will also be allowed to pass to consumers the costs of the experts it hired for its valuation panel, which exceed $5,000,000.
"The consumer groups argue that interest . . . is not allowed because we invalidated Rule 25.263(l)(3) in its entirety in [an earlier opinion]. The PUC and CenterPoint argue that we only invalidated the timing portion of the Rule - the date that interest begins to accrue. We agree with the PUC and CenterPoint."
The Court approved the costs of the valuation panel, approved by the PUC. "[T]he PUC, whose reasonable construction of PURA merits 'serious consideration,' [has] the better argument: '[B]y providing that the transferee corporations 'shall pay' valuation panel expenses, the legislature did not intend to preclude those expenses ultimately being recovered through rates under PURA 36.061(b)(2). [Section 39.262(h)(3)]. . . . It is true, as TIEC contends, that state-agency powers are limited, and agencies may not 'on a theory of necessary implication from a specific power, function, or duty expressly delegated, erect and exercise what really amounts to a new and additional power or one that contradicts the statute, no matter that the new power is viewed as expedient for administrative purposes.' But that admonition is inapposite here.

Supreme Court Rules for Insurance Company

After three workers fell to their deaths while repairing a communications tower, the insurance company for the responsible company denied coverage. In the recent case of Mid-Continent Casualty Company v. Global Enercom Management, Inc., ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. 2010)(10/1/01), the Supreme Court upheld that denial of coverage.
Global Enercom, which maintains communications towers, sent a written contract for repair work to All States; All States signed the contract and then returned it to Global. The contract required All States to provide insurance for Global. The boss of the three workers attempted to hoist them up the tower by using a pick-up truck to pull a rope attached to a pulley; when the rope broke, they fell to their deaths. Global subsequently signed the contract. The carrier denied coverage because of the "auto use" exclusion and the "subsequent-to-execution" exclusion. The Supreme Court ruled that the "auto use" exclusion in a CGL policy applied but that the "subsequent-to-execution" exclusion in a CGL and auto policy did not.

Supreme Court Reverses Itself

Recently, the Supreme Court reversed its own ruling from just one year before and dismissed a claim brought by a patient in a hospital. In the case of Marks v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. 2010(8/27/10), the Court overturned its holding in the matter from almost exactly one year earlier.

Awards & Recognition

  • 2016-2017 Equal Access to Justice Champion

    The Equal Access to Justice Champions Program was started by the Houston Bar Association in 2006, to help ensure placement of Houston Volunteer Lawyers cases with pro bono volunteers. Originally, firms were tiered according to size, and firms within each tier committed to accept a certain number of pro bono cases from HVL each year for five years.

  • The National Trial Lawyers | Top 100 Trial Lawyers

    The National Trial Lawyers: Top 100 is an invitation-only organization composed of the premier trial lawyers from each state or region who meet stringent qualifications as civil plaintiff and/or criminal defense trial lawyers. Selection is based on a thorough multi-phase objective and uniformly applied process which includes peer nominations combined with third-party research.

  • Million Dollar Advocates Forum

    Established in 1993, the Million Dollar Advocates Forum (which includes the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum) is one of the most prestigious groups of trial lawyers in the United States. Membership is limited to attorneys who have won million and multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements. There are over 4000 members throughout the country. Fewer than 1% of U.S. lawyers are members.

  • Recognized by Best Lawyers America | Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Aziz | 2017

    Recognition by Best Lawyers is based entirely on peer review. Their methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area.

  • Lead Counsel Rated

    In order to earn the Lead Counsel Rating, an attorney must not only demonstrate significant legal experience, but must also receive multiple peer recommendations advocating his or her ability. This is a key component in the screening process.

  • Texas Super Lawyers | Texas Monthly

    Each year, Super Lawyers recognizes the top lawyers in Texas via a patented multiphase selection process involving peer nomination, independent research and peer evaluation. The Texas lawyers who receive the highest point totals during this selection process are further recognized in Texas Super Lawyers Top Lists.

Get Your Free Case Review 713.587.9668

Let Us Help You Today! Request a Free Consultation

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

  • $50+ Million Personal Injury Fire and Explosion

    The firm successfully represented nearly 100 victims who suffered personal injuries and damages to property from a large fire and explosion resulting in a settlement of more than $50 million. The firm served as lead lawyers on the steering committee in this litigation.

  • $80 Million Personal Injury Large Plant Explosion

    The firm successfully represented 270 plaintiffs', taking a lead role in the plaintiffs' steering committee, who suffered injuries in a large plant explosion resulting in a settlement of nearly $80 million.

  • $50+ Million Personal Injury Plant Fire and Explosion

    The firm successfully represented 45 personal injury victims in a plant fire and explosion, serving on the plaintiffs' steering committee, concluding with a settlement of more than $50 million.

  • $22+ Million Personal Injury Work Site Accident

    The firm prevailed in a personal injury trial for a worksite injury client with the jury returning a verdict and resulting in a judgment of over $22 million for the firm's client.

  • $12 Million Auto Accident 18-Wheeler Collision

    The firm successfully achieved a $12 million settlement for the family of a man who died in an 18 wheeler collision.

  • $30 Million Personal Injury Burn Victims

    The firm prevailed on behalf of three burn victims with settlements totaling nearly $30 million.

Our Record Of Success.

When you are hurt and you choose a law firm to represent you in court or at the negotiation table, you need to carefully consider the firm's record.

More Success Stories