It’s worth remembering the shorthand that the Dallas Court uses, in its short memorandum opinions denying mandamus relief, to describe the requirements for the writ: “Ordinarily, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re: Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Having carefully reviewed the petition and record in support of the petition, we conclude relator has failed to establish a right to relief.”  E.g., In re Duncan, No. 05-15-01318-CV (Nov. 23, 2015, mem. op.)  While this succinct phrase is not controversial, it is worth noting that Prudential is still the “go-to” cite, and the basic two-factor test still the standard reference, despite the more exotic formulations of the Texas mandamus standards by other cases and commentators in the decade-plus since Prudential.

Property located in Louisiana was foreclosed upon in Orleans Parish.  Subsequent litigation in Texas about the appropriate credit for that sale was not filed in the right place, waiving that issue: “[Texas Property Code] Section 51.004 . . .   provides that any person obligated on the debt, including a guarantor, may bring an action in the district court in the county in which the real property is located for a determination of the fair market value of the real property as of the date of the foreclosure sale.”   State Bank v. Granbury Hospitality, No. 05-14-01306-CV (Nov. 20, 2015, mem. op.) (emphasis added).

Zive, the president of a partner in a real estate development venture, sought to testify about the value of the relevant property at various times, in the context of a dispute about the value received at a foreclosure sale.  The Court affirmed his exclusion, reminding that while “an owner is qualified to testify to property value,” the testimony must “meet the same requirements as any other opinion evidence.”  (quoting Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America v. Justiss, 397 S.W.3d 150, 156, 159 (Tex. 2012)).  Here, although Zive relied upon an appraiser’s report, Zive “provided no substantiation for his opinion that the fair market value of the property would have increased by approximately $2 million by the 2011 foreclosure sale date,” and thus did not meet the standard.  Grapevine Diamond v. City Bank, No. 05-14-00260-CV (Nov. 10, 2015, mem. op.)

While outside the usual coverage of this blog, the high-profile products liability case of Johnson & Johnson v. Batiste provides a powerful illustration of “no evidence” review. The plaintiff alleged personal injuries from defective vaginal mesh, the jury found for her, and the Dallas Court reversed:

“It is undisputed the implantation of a [product] for the treatment of [urinary incontinence] can cause a number of complications, including erosion of the mesh into the vagina and urethral, pelvic, and groin pain. It is also undisputed that Batiste suffered from these complications. However, ‘[t]he law of products liability does not guarantee that a product will be risk free.’  Rather, to recover on her product liability claim based on an alleged design defect in the [product], Batiste was required to prove a specific defect in the [product], and not simply the device itself, was the producing cause of her injuries. . . . Although Batiste alleged the [product] was defective based on its use of mechanically cut, heavyweight, small-pore mesh that was subject to degradation and particle loss, she failed to produce more than a scintilla of evidence that any of these alleged defects caused her injuries. Accordingly, the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury’s verdict.”

No. 05-14-00864-CV (Nov. 5, 2015, mem. op.)  (citations omitted).  Coverage of the case has recently appeared in the Dallas Observer and Dallas Morning News.

Pinkus, visiting Dallas on business, suffered fatal injuries in a car accident while driving to dinner with his son.  The Fifth Court affirmed summary judgment for his employer’s workers compensation carrier, finding (1) that the “continuous coverage” doctrine did not apply when his trip “merely placed him in a position to take advantage of an opportunity for a ‘distinct departure’ on a ‘personal errand,'” and (2) for the same reasons, the “dual purpose travel” doctrine did not apply either.  A concurrence would have analyzed the dual-purpose doctrine differently, but reached the same result. Pinkus v. Hartford Casualty, No. 05-14-00892-CV (Nov. 5, 2015).