Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of February 27, 2012

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.

DaimlerChrysler Motors Co., LLC v. Manuel, No. 02-07-00299-CV (Feb. 24, 2012) (Gardner, J., joined by Walker, J., and Dixon W. Holman (Senior Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment)).

Held: The "best efforts" provision in the parties' contract is enforceable, and legally sufficient evidence supports the trial court's determination that Appellant breached the contract. The limitation-of-damages provisions in the parties' contracts are ambiguous, but sufficient evidence supports the trial court's determination that the parties intended to retain liability for actual damages. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the testimony by Appellees' expert witnesses. However, the trial court used an incorrect notice date for purposes of calculating prejudgment interest, meaning the judgment must be reformed to reflect the correct amount of prejudgment interest. Moreover, Appellant failed to preserve its contention that Michigan law bars Appellees' recovery of attorney's fees, and the limitation-of-damages provisions in the parties' contracts do not prohibit recovery of Appellees' attorneys' fees. Finally, remand is required because Appellees presented some evidence of the segregated amount of their reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees by presenting evidence of an unsegregated amount of attorneys' fees, and appellate attorneys' fees are mandatory when trial attorneys' fees are mandatory under civil practice and remedies code chapter 38.

Town of Flower Mound v. Rembert Enters., Inc., No. 02-10-00408-CV (Mar. 1, 2012) (op. on reh'g) (Gardner, J., joined by Walker and McCoy, JJ.).

Held: The trial court did not err by denying, in part, Appellant's plea to the jurisdiction because local government code section 271.152 waives Appellant's immunity from suit with regard to the parties' contract because the contract is a contract for the provision of services to Appellant within the meaning of that statute. However, the trial court erred by denying, in part, Appellant's plea to the jurisdiction concerning Appellee's claim for declaratory relief. The trial court also erred by granting Appellant's plea to the jurisdiction as to Appellee's alternative claim for inverse condemnation.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «