It was a fairly quiet orders list today, with no opinions and no petitions granted for future arguments.

There is a two-day private conference of the Justices next Monday and Tuesday, so we may see more activity on next Friday’s orders list.

With today’s orders list, the Texas Supreme Court granted review in four new cases.

Request for more briefing the home-equity-lending case

Earlier this month, the Court heard oral arguments in Finance Commission Of Texas, et al. v. Valerie Norwood, et al., No. 10-0121, challenging the legality of Texas’s home-equity lending rules.

Today, the Court requested that both sides file briefs about whether or not the Court has jurisdiction to decide the case, specifically:

(1) Do the plaintiffs’ claims present a case or controversy that a declaratory judgment will resolve?

(2) Do the plaintiffs have standing?

The opening briefs are due October 20, 2011, with response briefs due October 31, 2011.

Four new petitions granted

To be argued January 10, 2012

• Mission Consolidated Independent School District v. Gloria Garcia, No. 10-0802

  In a claim for age-discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA): (1) can a plaintiff state a claim when the replacement ultimately hired for the job is older, and (2) are the notice requirements of the statute jurisdictional?

• In re M.P.A., No. 10-0859

  This is a juvenile-justice case about expert testimony. The State’s testifying psychologist was later sanctioned by professional board for making false claims that overstated the reliability and acceptance of the test administered to this defendant. The petition asks the Texas Supreme Court to bring the same scrutiny to expert testimony in this context that it brought to civil experts in cases such as Robinson.

To be argued January 11, 2012

• PNS Stores, Inc., d/b/a MacFrugal’s Bargain Closeouts v. Anna E. Rivera as next friend for Rachel Rivera, No. 10-1028

  This is a jurisdictional challenge to a default judgment brought nine years after it was rendered. In the default judgment, the original district court stated certain procedural facts as findings. In this collateral attack, the court of appeals concluded that any defect in service made the original default judgment voidable rather than void, and thus that the challenge was too late. The petition argues that this defect is jurisdictional and can be raised at any time, as well as arguing that the reviewing court should be able to look beyond the recitations in a default judgment. (( The petition also suggests that a prior federal judgment between the parties makes this state judgment “void” and that an alleged ethics violation by counsel for the plaintiff is another basis for collateral attack. ))

• Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC V. Dallas Area Rapid Transit and Fort Worth Transportation Authority, No. 11-0079

  This is a condemnation case with two twists. The first is that the condemning authority is a private electric company operating under the authorization of the Texas Public Utility Commission. The second is that the landowners here are governmental entities. So, here a private electric company is using state eminent-domain authority to take land owned by two other government entities. The key question is whether these governments, as landowners, can assert immunity against an eminent-domain suit.

Corrected Opinion

In Re Alice M. Puig, No. 10-0460

While denying a motion that it rehear the case, the Court issued a corrected opinion that made some non-substantive corrections.

The Texas Supreme Court did not issue any opinions or choose new cases for argument with today’s orders list.

The Texas Supreme Court did not release any opinions with today’s orders list.

The Court did re-set the oral argument in ECOM Real Estate Management v. City of Midlothian, No. 10-0150, which had originally been set for argument last December before being abated. The new argument date is November 9, 2011.

That case is about whether a city can assert immunity against a contract claim (for violating an agreed easement) when that contract originated as a settlement of a possible eminent-domain case. It blends together the hot issue from a few terms back (immunity) with the hot issue of the present (takings). The contractor claims that, because a city cannot be immune from a constitutional takings suit, it cannot be immune from suit over a contract settling such a dispute under the plurality opinion in Lawson v. Texas A&M University—Kingsville, 87 S.W.3d 518 (2002). (( For what it’s worth, I worked on a subsequent appeal in the Lawson case and on a later case raising similar immunity questions, Koseoglu v. Texas A&M University, No. 05-0321. ))

This week’s orders list is out.

The Allcat franchise-tax challenge has an argument date: October 24, 2011

Allcat Claims Service, L.P. and John Weakly v. Susan Combs, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Greg Abbott, Attorney General for the State of Texas, No. 11‑0589

This is the original proceeding challenging the Texas business-tax system. (Some articles about the case, and the initial briefs, are collected on this page.)

The Court will hear oral argument on Monday, October 24, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. That is the same week suggested by the Court’s previous briefing order in the case.

It is the only case on the argument calendar that day, and the Court is giving each side 30 minutes rather than the 20 minutes usually allotted to petitions.

Amicus argument permitted in a Jones Act (maritime injury) case

Weeks Marine, Inc. v. Maximino Garza, No. 10‑0435

The Court will be permitting a private amicus to participate in this oral argument. The case involves how to divide responsibility between an employee and the employer in a Jones Act maritime case. The specific question is about the “specific orders” doctrine, under which an employer is more responsible when they have limited the employee’s discretion.

The amicus (King Fisher Marine Services, L.P.) submitted an amicus brief advancing a different view of that doctrine than either party. The conclusion, however, is aligned with the employer. The Court’s order divides the argument so that the employer now has 15 minutes of time, the amicus 5 minutes, and the employee 20 minutes.

The Court did not issue any opinions with today’s orders list. It did bring back one previously abated case to its docket, the Bison Building Materials arbitration case. (( I’ve written about it before, but it may mean less after the Court has spoken to Hall Street in the NAFTA Traders case. ))

The Court’s statistical year runs from September through August, so last week’s opinions were a year-end burst of activity.

How many argued cases are left to be decided?

Fewer than you may think. After combing through the numbers, I found four (yes, only four) argued cases that had not been decided by August 31st. That count excludes abated cases (such as Severance, which was abated to let the Fifth Circuit address mootness). This week, the Court returned the abated Bison Building Materials to its active docket. So that makes five:

• Bison Building Materials, Ltd. v. Lloyd K. Aldridge, No. 06-1084 (argued Jan. 16, 2008). Just reinstated to the docket today.

• City of Dallas v. David S. Martin & George W. Parker, et al., No. 07-0288 (argued Dec. 17, 2009).

• The Edwards Aquifer Authority and the State of Texas v. Burrell Day and Joel McDaniel, No. 08-0964 (argued Feb. 17, 2010).

• Sharyland Water Supply Corporation v. City of Alton, Carter & Burgess, Inc., Cris Equipment Company and Turner, Collie & Braden, Inc., No. 09-0223 (argued Mar. 24, 2010)

• Vernon F. Minton V. Jerry W. Gunn, individually, Williams Squire & Wren, LLP, James E. Wren, individually, Slusser & Frost, L.L.P., William C. Slusser, individually, Slusser Wilson & Partridge, L.L.P. and Michael E. Wilson, individually, No. 10-0141 (argued Mar. 1, 2011)

By this count, there was only one case argued last year that has not yet been decided (and it was argued just six months ago).

With the last Friday orders list of the fiscal year, the Court released opinions in 19 cases today. The Court also granted review in four others — filling its December calendar and setting one case for argument in January 2012.

With today’s list, the Court also shifted to only issuing PDF versions of its opinions instead of releasing both a PDF and an HTML version. When I get a chance this afternoon, I will be doing a quick inventory to see which features might have broken on my docket site. (( Among other things, I’m not yet sure how this affects my statistics and vote tracking, which were built on the old orders-list format. With the end of the fiscal year, I’m already getting requests for those numbers — and now they’re a little farther away. ))

Once that is figured out, I will be adding summaries of the most important cases and the new grants. There are some fun ones.

There were no opinions on today’s orders list, but the Court did work through many of the petitions that had accumulated during its break. Of those, the Court chose five new cases for oral argument and denied the rest.

The Court also reset the argument date for the Whittington takings case until December 6, 2011, at the parties’ request.

Set for December 6, 2011

• Larry York d/b/a York Tank Trucks v. State Of Texas and Wise County, Texas, No. 09-0905. Mr. York’s vehicle was taken by the County after a justice-court proceeding — but the judgment was issued during the automatic stay from a bankruptcy petition. He now challenges that judgment as an unlawful taking of his property. A legal question in the case is whether a judgment issued during a stay is “void” or “voidable”, that is, whether it has no effect whatsoever (void) or whether it is the affected party’s responsibility to bring the problem to the court’s attention (voidable).

• AHF-Arbors at Huntsville I, LLC And AHF-Arbors at Huntsville II, LLC v. Walker County Appraisal District, No. 10‑0683 and No. 10‑0714. Are these real-estate entities eligible for the property-tax exemption for charitable organizations? A legal question is whether subsidiary corporations (such as these) can inherit the charitable status obtained by their parent corporations or whether they have to earn it on their own.

• City of Austin v. Harry M. Whittington, et al., No. 10-0316. [Reset from September 14, 2011]

Set for December 7, 2011

• Dr. Erwin Cruz v. Andrews Restoration, Inc. d/b/a Protech Services And Rudy Martinez, No. 10-0995. If you’re a fan of the “statute of frauds,” this might be the rare case for you. One issue is whether to apply Texas’s so-called “main purpose doctrine” (under which, confusingly enough, an oral promise can be enforced if it is for “the promisor’s own benefit” and not for a third party who might need the protection of the statute). Another issue is how the DTPA remedy called “restoration” works. The court of appeals concluded that it worked like the equitable doctrine of rescission, which requires both parties to return what was exchanged so that things are back where they started. The plaintiff here argues that this statutory remedy was meant to protect consumers and thus should not require that property be surrendered back to the defendant.

• In re Ascension Martinez, Jr., individually and d/b/a Rbr Real Estate, No. 11-0007. Is mandamus appropriate to stop discovery about a defendant’s net worth? This mandamus petition argues that requiring it to turn over this information is improper unless the plaintiff can first point to sufficient evidence of the kind of conduct that might ever lead to punitive damages.

• In re Larry Charles Fuller, No. 11-0018. The question is whether Fuller is entitled to the higher level of wrongful-imprisonment benefits provided by the Texas Legislature in a recent amendment. The Comptroller argues, in part, that Fuller failed to meet the time limits for filing an agency appeal before filing his mandamus petition.