Abogado Aly: Thirteen cases decided; no grants [Apr. 24, 2015]

Originally published by Don Cruse.

With this week’s orders list, the Texas Supreme Court released opinions in thirteen pending cases.

For those of you keeping score at home:

Justice Lehrmann’s four majority opinions today puts her in the lead on this Term’s leaderboard.
The one separate opinion issued today — an opinion concurring in judgment authored by Justice Hecht — brings the Court’s total to eight such opinions this Term. If the pattern holds from last Term, the bulk of the divided cases will be resolved in the summer. (I would have said “the most divided cases,” but they may not be able to top UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON v. SANDRA WILLIAMS AND STEVE WILLIAMS, No. 13-0338
, issued in March.)
Three of today’s cases led to affirmances.

When issue summaries are ready, they will appear on this page. You can also follow the links below to reach each opinion:

IN RE BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS TIRE OPERATIONS, LLC, No. 12-0946

Opinion of the Court

When the State condemns land containing a billboard, what compensation is due?

STATE OF TEXAS v. CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, INC., No. 13-0053

Opinion of the Court

The most current summary describes this event:

Set to be argued on September 17, 2014

In this case, the State (supported by some local governments) challenges how billboards were valued in condemnation. The landowners contend that the installed billboards are part of the realty warranting compensation for their lost income. The State argues that they should, instead, be seen as a type of personal property that can be relocated away from the property being condemned.

Previously:

Four opinions and one grant (May 16, 2014)
Three opinions, one grant (June 16, 2014)

TEXAS STUDENT HOUSING AUTHORITY v. BRAZOS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND APPRAISAL REVIEW BOARD FOR BRAZOS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, No. 13-0593

Opinion of the Court

Previously:

One new opinion, one revised opinion, and six grants (October 5, 2014)

BROWN & GAY ENGINEERING, INC. v. ZULEIMA OLIVARES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF PEDRO OLIVARES, JR., & PEDRO OLIVARES, No. 13-0605

Opinion of the Court

Concurring

Previously:

Three opinions, one grant (June 16, 2014)

JAW THE POINTE, L.L.C. v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 13-0711

Opinion of the Court

Previously:

One new opinion, one revised opinion, and six grants (October 5, 2014)

VERNCO CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. DAVID NELSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A COLLECTIVE CONTRACTING, A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP; AND E.E. HOOD & SONS, INC., No. 13-0750

Per Curiam

MATTHEW LIPPINCOTT AND CREG PARKS v. WARREN WHISENHUNT, No. 13-0926

Per Curiam

IN RE STEVEN LIPSKY, No. 13-0928

Opinion of the Court

SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM v. DEBRA NICHOLAS, No. 13-0966

Opinion of the Court

JLG TRUCKING, LLC v. LAUREN R. GARZA, No. 13-0978

Opinion of the Court

Compounding pharmacies under the health-care-liability act

RANDOL MILL PHARMACY, KVG ENTERPRISES, INC., GARY G. DALEY, JOHN WAYNE BAILEY, JAMES ROBERT FORSYTHE, KEVIN LYNN HEIDE, JULIE KNOWLTON LUBBERT, AND CARA MORRELL v. STACEY MILLER AND RANDY MILLER, No. 13-1014

Opinion of the Court

The most current summary describes this event:

Set to be argued on January 14, 2015

This is a claim against a compounding pharmacy based on an antioxidant supplement. The supplement was provided to a doctor’s office, which then provided it to patients. The pharmacy argued that this was a health-care-liability claim and, accordingly, should be dismissed because no expert report was timely filed. The plaintiff argues that filling what the response calls a “bulk” order for these supplements is not filling a prescription and does not fit the statute.

Previously: