Texas Supreme Court Opinions (Tex. 2008)

2008 Texas Supreme Court Opinions by Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson

Jury Selection: Peremptory Strikes Found Motivated by Race Require Reversal of Judgment in
Employment Discrimination Case
Davis v. Fisk Electric Co., No. 06-0162 (Tex. Sep. 26, 2008)(Jefferson)
(jury selection, denial of Batson challenge to race-based juror strike was error, new trial ordered)
DONALD DAVIS v. FISK ELECTRIC COMPANY, FISK TECHNOLOGIES & FISK MANAGEMENT, INC.; from
Harris County; 14th district (14-04-00790-CV, 187 SW3d 570, 01-12-06)
The Court reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justice Hecht, Justice O'Neill, Justice
Wainwright, Justice Medina, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett.
Justice Brister delivered a concurring opinion, in which Justice Medina joined as to Part III.

Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Nokia Inc., No. 06-1030 (Tex. Aug. 29,2008)(Jefferson)
(insurance coverage, duty to defend)
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AND NATIONAL UNION
FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. NOKIA, INCORPORATED; from Dallas County; 5th district
(05-04-01729-CV, 202 SW3d 384, 08-21-06)
The Court modifies the court of appeals' judgment and affirms that judgment as modified.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice O'Neill, Justice Wainwright,
Justice Medina, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Brister joined.

Federal Ins. Co. v. Samsung Electronics America, No. 06-1040 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Jefferson)
(duty to defend cell phone company against consumer class action found)
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, L.P. F/K/A SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, INC. AND
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; from Dallas County; 5th district
(05-04-01316-CV, 202 SW3d 372, 08-21-06)
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice O'Neill, Justice Wainwright,
Justice Medina, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Brister joined.

Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cellular One Group, No. 07-0140 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Jefferson)
(insurance law, duty to defend, companion case to Zurich v. Nokia)
TRINITY UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. CELLULAR ONE GROUP; from Dallas County; 5th district
(05-04-01641-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 01-09-07)
The Court affirms the court of appeals' judgment.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice O'Neill, Justice Wainwright,
Justice Medina, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Brister joined.

Ulico Casualty Co. v. Allied Pilots A ssociation, No. 06-0247 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Johnson)
(insurance coverage, non-coverage claim, waiver, estoppel)
ULICO CASUALTY COMPANY v. ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION; from Tarrant County; 2nd district
(02-04-00120-CV, 187 SW3d 91, 12-15-05)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a concurring opinion, in which Justice O'Neill joined.

Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert, No. 05-0916 (Tex. June 27, 2008) (Majority Opinion by
Justice Medina) (con law, church and state religion disputes, first amendment freedom of religion clause,
exorcism of demons, intentional tort claim by church member for mental anguish damages barred by
church's religious doctrine immunity, estoppel claim rejected)
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Green joined, and in Parts II-A,
III, and IV of which Justice Johnson joined.
Justice Green delivered a dissenting opinion.
Justice Johnson delivered a dissenting opinion.

JCW Electronics, Inc. v. Garza, No. 05-1042 (Tex. June 27, 2008) (Opinion by Justice David Medina)
(UCC breach of implied warranty claim in PI, death case a tort for purposes of comparative responsibility
statute; recovery barred)
JCW ELECTRONICS, INC. v. PEARL IRIZ GARZA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF
ROLANDO DOMINGO MONTEZ, DECEASED, AND BELINDA LEIGH CAMACHO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
NEXT FRIEND OF ROLANDO KADRIC MONTEZ, A MINOR CHILD; from Cameron County; 13th district (13-
02-00577-CV, 176 SW3d 618, 10-13-05)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice David Medina delivered the opinion of the Court.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a concurring opinion in JCW Electronics v. Garza,
in which Justice O'Neill joined.

In the Matter of H .V ., No. 06-0005 (Tex. Apr. 11, 2008)(Brister) (juvenile law, Miranda warning,
requirements for effective invocation of right to counsel, suppression of confession, exclusion of evidence)
IN THE MATTER OF H.V.; from Tarrant County; 2nd district (02-04-00029-CV, 179 S.W.3d 746, 11-17-05)
The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the
trial court. Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice O'Neill, Justice Medina, Justice
Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in
which Justice Wainwright and Justice Green joined, and in which Justice Hecht joined as to Parts I, III, and V.

Medical City Dallas, Ltd. v. Carlisle Corp., No. 06-0660 (Tex. Apr. 11, 2008)(Jefferson) (breach of
express warranty claim, entitlement to attorney's fees)
MEDICAL CITY DALLAS, LTD. v. CARLISLE CORPORATION D/B/A CARLISLE SYNTEC
SYSTEMS; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-04-00157-CV, 196 S.W.3d 855, 06-27-06)
The Court reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and reinstates the trial court's judgment.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court.
(Justice Hecht not sitting)

20281, Inc. v. Parker, No. 06-0574 (Tex. Mar. 28, 2008)(Jefferson)(Dram Shop Act, provider liability,
defense) 20801, INC. v. JOHN L. PARKER; from Harris County; 14th district (14-05-00250-CV, 194 S.W.3d
556, 04-11-06)
The Court reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court.

Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Inman, No. 03-1189 (Tex. Feb. 1, 2008)(Opinion by Justice Nathan Hecht)
(consumer law, product liability, class action dismissed on standing grounds, jurisdictional dismissal, DWOJ)
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION v. BILL INMAN, DAVID CASTRO, AND JOHN WILKINS, EACH
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; from Nueces County; 13th
district (13-02-00415-CV, 121 S.W.3d 862, 11/20/03)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and dismisses the case for want of jurisdiction. Justice
Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice Medina, and
Justice Willett joined.
Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson delivered a dissenting opinion in Daimler Chrysler v. Inman,
in which Justice Harriet O'Neill, Justice
Paul Green, and Justice Phil Johnson joined.

In Re Brookshire Grocery Co., No. 05-0300 (Tex. Jan. 4, 2008)(Opinion by Wallace Jefferson)
(appellate procedure, post-trial motions, procedure, extension of trial court's plenary jurisdiction)
IN RE BROOKSHIRE GROCERY COMPANY; from Wood County; 6th district (06-05-00033-CV, 160 S.W.3d
288, 03/25/05)
The Court denies the petition for writ of mandamus.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice O'Neill, Justice Medina, Justice
Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, and Justice Green
joined.
In this mandamus action, the court considers whether a motion for new trial filed within thirty days of
judgment, but after a preceding motion for new trial has been overruled, extends the trial court’s plenary
power under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 329b, and holds that it does not. Accordingly the court denies
relator Brookshire Grocery Company’s petition for writ of mandamus.