With this week’s orders list, the Texas Supreme Court chose three cases for oral argument. One of them will be heard in April; the other two appear to be waiting for the fall calendar.

The Court also issued a slightly corrected opinion in Coinmach Corp. f/k/a Solon Automated Services, Inc. v. Aspenwood Apartment Corp., No. 11-0213 while denying rehearing.

Chosen for Argument

Standards for reviewing parental termination

On April 22, 2014, the Court will hear In re A.B. and H.B., children, No. 13-0749 .

This is a parental-termination case, and keeping with the Court’s recent pattern, it has been allotted a special hearing date rather than waiting in a queue with other petitions.

The petition is framed to attack the “factual sufficiency” standards employed by the court of appeals, a question rarely presented but that comes up often in courts below. With that in mind, it’s possible that an opinion here might have ramifications beyond the family law context.

How commercial property insurance applies to multiple sites listed under a single policy

In RSUI Indemnity Company v. The Lynd Company, No. 13-0080 , the petition asks the Court to decide whether the policy at issue is a “scheduled” policy or a “blanket” policy, which has ramifications for what arguments an insurer can make to limit its exposure.

The court of appeals heard the case en banc and divided 4-3, with one of the four justices in the majority writing separately to encourage the Court to grant review.

Does the State automatically freeze the effect of an adverse judgment by filing an appeal?

If you litigate against state entities, you may be curious to follow In re State Board for Educator Certification, No. 13-0537 , which asks the Court to clarify the state’s ability to supersede judgments without posting a bond.

The agency has suspended an educator’s license. The trial court held that was improper and, after the agency filed an appeal, issued an order denying it the ability to supersede that judgment. This mandamus petition asks the Court to rule that the trial court lacked any discretion in the matter.