Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of March 28, 2011

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.

Cen-Tex Childcare, Inc. v. Johnson,   No. 02-10-00308-CV    (Mar. 31, 2011)   (Gardner, J., joined by Walker and McCoy, JJ.).

Held:   The court does not have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal because Appellant is not an individual who is an officer or employee of the state as required by civil practice and remedies code section 51.014(a)(5).

Dugas Ltd. P'ship v. Dugas,   No. 02-09-00463-CV    (Mar. 31, 2011)   (Meier, J., joined by Dauphinot, J.; Walker, J., concurs and dissents with opinion). [Note: Both opinions are at the same link in one document.]

Held:   The evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court's finding that Dugas, LP's principal place of business is Texas because Dugas, LP's partnership agreement identifies its principal place of business as Texas; the address listed in Dugas, LP's partnership agreement is the same address where Bruce and Donna lived when they moved to Texas in 1995; Dugas, LP's general partner's address is also identified in the partnership agreement as the same address where Bruce and Donna lived in Texas; Bruce--not any of his siblings who live in other states--signed the partnership agreement as "President" of the general partner; and Dugas, LP's only function is to manage the valuable assets of a Texas General Partnership--an activity that requires Dugas, LP to utilize Texas-based assets.

Concurrence & Dissent:   Because Dugas LP factually negated Appellees' pleaded bases for jurisdiction by establishing that Dugas LP did not do business in Texas; because Appellees did not come forward with any evidence supporting their allegations that Dugas LP did do business in Texas; because Dugas LP legally negated Appellees' contention that the Texas courts possessed general jurisdiction over it based on the inaccurate statement in its ten-year-old initial limited partnership agreement; and because Dugas LP's ownership of a Texas general partnership that has contacts with Texas is not relevant in the absence of jurisdictional alter ego or veil-piercing pleadings, Dugas LP is not subject to the general jurisdiction of Texas courts.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «