AN ACTIVE WEEK AT THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court issued 13 opinions on Friday, August 30.  In addition to those discussed in individual entries here on the blog, the following are among the court’s noteworthy decisions:

Moncrief Oil International, Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, No. 11-0195, Justice Guzman (Opinion). The court found personal jurisdiction to be established for plaintiff’s claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, but not its claims for tortious interference, in a convoluted dispute between a Texas company and entities based in Russia. In so doing, the court reinforced two tenets of specific jurisdiction: (1) While tort liability may depend on a defendant’s intent or state of mind, personal jurisdiction is predicated on the defendant’s contacts with Texas, and the defendant’s intent is generally irrelevant to jurisdiction; and (2) specific jurisdiction must be analyzed on a claim-by-claim basis, such that a finding of specific jurisdiction over one claim will not support jurisdiction over another, unless the same contacts suffice for both.

Dugger v. Arredondo, No. 11-0549, Justice Green (Opinion).  The court held that the common-law “unlawful acts doctrine,” which precludes tort recovery if the plaintiff engaged in an illegal act that contributed to his injury, is inconsistent with Texas’s proportionate responsibility scheme and therefore is no longer a valid defense.

Zanchi v. Lane, No. 11-0826, Justice Lehrmann (Opinion).  Holding that the word “party” in the Texas Medical Liability Act includes a defendant that has been named in a lawsuit but not yet served, the court concluded the plaintiff complied with the expert-report requirement of the Act by sending his report to an unserved defendant by certified mail within 120 days after filing suit.

Nathan v. Whittington, No. 12-0628, Per Curiam.  The court held that Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 16.064(a), which suspends the running of limitations in certain circumstances in which a trial court dismiss a claim for lack of jurisdiction, does not suspend the running of a statute of repose.
Print Friendly and PDF