https://texasappeals.org/courts/supreme-court-of-texas/Clinical descriptions of the Texas appellate decisions drawing the most press coverage.Hugo -- gohugo.ioen-usMon, 01 Jun 2026 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2026/06/weldon-v-lilith-fund-tcpa/Mon, 01 Jun 2026 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2026/06/weldon-v-lilith-fund-tcpa/The court held that the Fund’s declaratory-judgment suit against Sadie Weldon was “based on or . . . in response to” her earlier Rule 202 pre-suit deposition petition, so the first step of the TCPA dismissal procedure was met. The opinion does not decide whether Senate Bill 8 is constitutional or whether the suit must be dismissed, and it remands the remaining steps to the court of appeals.https://texasappeals.org/2026/04/heb-v-peterson/Mon, 13 Apr 2026 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2026/04/heb-v-peterson/The court held that a plaintiff responding to a no-evidence summary judgment motion must present some evidence of how long a dangerous condition existed, and that evidence of earlier roof leaks in other parts of a grocery store did not raise a fact issue on the grocer’s constructive knowledge of a puddle in the toy aisle. The court reversed the Thirteenth Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment.https://texasappeals.org/2026/01/4-families-of-hobby-v-city-of-houston/Mon, 26 Jan 2026 07:00:00 -0600https://texasappeals.org/2026/01/4-families-of-hobby-v-city-of-houston/The court held that two provisions of the City of Houston’s Hobby Airport concessions agreement can reasonably be read to require city expenditures of more than $50,000, so the losing bidder is entitled to jurisdictional discovery before its Chapter 252 claims are dismissed. The opinion does not decide whether the City violated the statute or whether the agreement is void.https://texasappeals.org/2025/06/paxton-v-annunciation-house-quo-warranto/Mon, 16 Jun 2025 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2025/06/paxton-v-annunciation-house-quo-warranto/The court held that criminal acts are not categorically excluded as grounds for quo warranto, that the trial court applied the wrong standard in denying the Attorney General leave to file, and that the records-request statutes are not facially unconstitutional. The opinion states that it does not decide the merits of the harboring allegations.https://texasappeals.org/2024/11/in-re-texas-house-roberson-subpoena/Mon, 25 Nov 2024 07:00:00 -0600https://texasappeals.org/2024/11/in-re-texas-house-roberson-subpoena/The court denied a Texas House committee’s petition, holding that the separation of powers does not permit judicial enforcement of a legislative subpoena that would require canceling a long-scheduled execution. The opinion states that the dispute has nothing to do with Robert Roberson’s guilt or innocence.https://texasappeals.org/2024/10/in-re-state-state-fair-handgun-ban/Mon, 07 Oct 2024 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2024/10/in-re-state-state-fair-handgun-ban/The court denied the State’s petition for writ of mandamus and its emergency motion for temporary relief in an order that gives no reasons. A three-justice concurrence stated that the State had not argued that Texas law obligates the privately operated State Fair to allow handguns.https://texasappeals.org/2024/09/in-re-dallas-hero-charter-propositions/Mon, 16 Sep 2024 07:00:00 -0500https://texasappeals.org/2024/09/in-re-dallas-hero-charter-propositions/The court held that the ballot language for the City Council’s Propositions K, M and N was misleading because it did not disclose that each conflicted with and proposed to nullify a citizen-initiated charter amendment on the same ballot. It directed the City to remove the three propositions.