Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of October 31, 2013

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

Lund v. Giauque, No. 02-13-00029-CV (Oct. 31, 2013) (Gabriel, J., joined by Dauphinot and McCoy, JJ.).

Held:  The trial court erred by holding section 101.106(f) of the civil practice and remedies code, as applied to Appellees, violated the open-courts provision of the Texas Constitution. To establish an open-courts violation, Appellees were required to show that (1) their cause of action against Appellants (two governmental employees acting within the scope of their employment) was well established at common law and (2) the restriction is unreasonable or arbitrary when balanced against the statute's purpose. This second, balance prong considers either whether a substitute remedy was provided or whether the legislative action was a reasonable exercise of the legislature's police power in the interest of the general welfare. Although the legislature did not provide Appellees with a substitute remedy, section 101.106(f) was a reasonable exercise of its police power. Because Appellees cannot meet the balance prong, they failed to establish that the application of section 101.106(f) to their claims against Appellants violated the open-courts provision. Thus, Appellants were entitled to dismissal of Appellees' claims as provided in section 101.106(f).

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «