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:

When the State condemns land containing a billboard, what compensation is due?
Summary for previous 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)
    • Previously:
  • One new opinion, one revised opinion, and six grants (October 5, 2014)
    • Previously:
  • Three opinions, one grant (June 16, 2014)
    • Previously:
  • One new opinion, one revised opinion, and six grants (October 5, 2014)
    • Compounding pharmacies under the health-care-liability act
    Summary for previous 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:
  • Four grants: disqualifying counsel; suing compounding pharmacies; government immunity × 2 (October 27, 2014)