Supreme Court of Texas
Texas Supreme Court Overrules Lower Court Decisions Permitting Interlocutory Appellate Review of Venue Rulings In All Multi-Plaintiff Cases
June 6, 2025 in Case Summaries
In a tragic case involving a six-year-old girl who was killed by her school bus as she crossed in front of it, the Texas Supreme Court agreed with the argument of her parents, Levinger PC’s clients, that the bus manufacturer and dealer had no right to take an interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s order denying their challenge to venue in Dallas County. Despite a previous line of intermediate court decisions upholding interlocutory appeals in all cases involving multiple plaintiffs, the Supreme Court interpreted section 15.003(b) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code to permit interlocutory appeals only in cases where a plaintiff’s independent claim to venue is at issue. Because the parents were asserting identical claims based on identical facts under identical venue grounds, the Court held that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction over the defendants’ interlocutory appeal of the venue ruling. In so holding, the Court closed a significant loophole that had permitted piecemeal appeals in any venue case involving multiple plaintiffs, and reinforced the principle that interlocutory appeals are the exception rather than the rule. Rush Truck Centers of Texas, L.P. v. Sean and Tori Sayre, No. 24-0040, 2025 WL 1599527 (Tex. June 6, 2025).
Courts: Supreme Court of Texas
Subject Matter: Procedural & Evidentiary Issues;
Products Liability & Personal Injury
Texas Supreme Court Clarifies Boundaries Between Eviction Suits in JP Courts and Damage Suits Against Landlords in District Courts
May 17, 2024 in Case Summaries
Levinger PC teamed with former Chief Justice Tom Phillips to convince the Texas Supreme Court to resurrect a breach of contract and constructive eviction lawsuit filed by their client, Westwood Motorcars, LLC, against its commercial landlord. The Dallas court of appeals had reversed a significant judgment that Westwood had obtained following a jury trial, holding that an agreed judgment of possession in an eviction case filed in the justice of the peace court barred Westwood’s claims in district court because it meant that Westwood had voluntarily abandoned the premises. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that a justice-court judgment in an eviction suit determines only the right to immediate possession of the premises and is not a final determination of the parties’ ultimate rights, the wrongfulness of the eviction, or any other question. Because the justice-court judgment does not bar a suit for damages in district court, and because the evidence showed that Westwood’s departure from the premises was not voluntary, the Supreme Court remanded the case for a determination of the landlord’s unaddressed issues. Westwood Motorcars, LLC v. Virtuolotry, LLC, 689 S.W.3d 879 (Tex. 2024).
Courts: Supreme Court of Texas
Subject Matter: Business litigation
Dallas Court of Appeals Affirms Jury Finding that Goodyear Was Grossly Negligent in Exposing Deceased Tire Builder to Asbestos
September 13, 2017 in Case Summaries
Working closely with trial lawyer Chris Panatier, Jeff Levinger convinced the Dallas Court of Appeals to affirm a jury’s finding that the gross negligence of Goodyear at its tire manufacturing facility in Tyler caused its employee Carl Rogers to be exposed to significant amounts of asbestos, which resulted in his death from mesothelioma. Based on extensive expert testimony and historical data concerning the dangers of asbestos, the court of appeals upheld the jury’s finding that Goodyear’s conduct—especially its failure to monitor its employees’ exposure to asbestos for over ten years—involved an extreme degree of risk, and that Goodyear had subjective awareness of that risk but proceeded with conscious indifference to the safety of its employees. The court also rejected Goodyear’s argument that Rogers had not established causation by adequately ruling out the radiation that was used to successfully treat a previous bout with lung cancer. Finally, over a dissent by Justice Ada Brown, the majority suggested a remittitur of the damages awarded under the exemplary-damages cap statute based on its determination that the evidence did not support the entirety of the award for past and future economic damages. The Texas Supreme Court denied Goodyear’s petition for review after full briefing on the merits. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Rogers, 538 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, pet. denied).
Courts: Supreme Court of Texas, Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts
Subject Matter: Products Liability & Personal Injury, Labor & Employment
Judgment Against General Contractor Is Reversed Based On Erroneous Jury Charge Submission
Judgment Against General Contractor Is Reversed Based On Erroneous Jury Charge Submission
October 27, 2016 in Case Summaries
Led by the advocacy of Carl Cecere, Levinger PC persuaded the Dallas Court of Appeals to reverse a judgment of nearly $1.5 million against general contractor Viking Healthcare in favor of Zeig Electric, a subcontractor, in connection with the construction of a specialty hospital in Sherman, Texas. The appellate court determined that no evidence supported the liability question submitted to the jury, which asked whether Viking and a project manager that was not a party to the subcontract “failed to comply with the Agreement” with Zeig. Despite the absence of evidence, the court remanded the case for a new trial “in the interest of justice.” The Supreme Court denied review after requesting briefing on both Zeig’s petition and its motion for rehearing. Viking Healthcare, LLC v. Zeig Electric, Inc., No. 05‑15‑00835‑CV, 2016 WL 7448335 (Tex. App. — Dallas Oct. 27, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.).
Courts: Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts, Supreme Court of Texas
Subject Matter: Business Litigation, Procedural & Evidentiary Issues
Court of Appeals Tosses Developer’s $9 Million Inverse Condemnation Award Against City of McKinney
Court of Appeals Tosses Developer’s $9 Million Inverse Condemnation Award Against City of McKinney
May 3, 2016 in Case Summaries
Jeff Levinger successfully represented the City of McKinney in its appeal of a judgment of over $9,000,000 stemming from a developer’s claim that the City had committed an “inverse condemnation” by violating a restriction in a deed. In its 2009 lawsuit, Eldorado Land Company contended that the City’s construction of a library on a portion of a 32 acre tract that Eldorado had conveyed to the City for use as a community park violated the deed restriction, which provided that the property could be used only as a “park and recreational facility.” The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of El Dorado on the liability issue, and a jury assessed damages of over $7,500,000 (exclusive of interest), representing the difference in the property’s value with and without its deed and zoning restrictions. In reversing the summary judgment on liability and rendering a take-nothing in favor of the City, the Court of Appeals held that the City’s community library fit squarely within the “plain, ordinary, and generally accepted meaning” of a park and recreational facility, and thus did not violate the restriction in the deed. City of McKinney v. Eldorado Land Co., LP, No. 05-15-00067-CV, 2016 WL 2349371 (Tex. App.-Dallas May 3, 2016, pet. denied).
Courts:Supreme Court of Texas, Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts
Subject Matter: Business Litigation, Oil & Gas/Real Estate