The Mundy Firm

... it was well established in Texas jurisprudence that such evidence did not constitute contributory negligence, nor was it properly considered as a means to mitigate damages. 

Medical malpractice also differs from ordinary negligence in the circumstances under which a duty arises.  In an ordinary negligence case, the duty to refrain from negligently injuring others requires no prior relationship.  Professionals, on other hand, do not owe a duty to exercise their particular talents, knowledge, and skill on behalf of every person they encounter.  "As is true of all callings, physicians are not obligated to practice their profession or render services to everyone who asks." It is only with the physician's express or implied consent that the physician-patient relationship is created. 

Originally, the FTCA afforded tort victims a remedy against the United States, but did not preclude lawsuits against individual tortfeasors. Judgment against the United States in an FTCA action would bar a subsequent action against the federal employee whose conduct gave rise to the claim, 28 U. S. C. §2676, but plaintiffs were not obliged to proceed exclusively against the Government. They could sue as sole or joint defendants federal employees alleged to have acted tortiously in the course of performing their official duties.

As a general rule, a plaintiff seeking "to recover the reasonable value of services rendered or materials supplied will be permitted to recover in quantum meruit only when there is no express contract covering those services or materials." Truly v. Austin, 744 S.W.2d 934, 936 (Tex. 1988) [Emphasis added]. "There are instances when recovery in quantum meruit is permitted despite the existence of an express contract that covers the subject matter of the claim." Id. [Emphasis added]. In a dispute involving a contract case, such as the one here, a breaching plaintiff may recover in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of services less any damages suffered by the defendant. Id. at 937. "Central to the contractor's right to recover in quantum meruit is the owner's acceptance and retention of the benefits arising as a direct result of the contractor's partial performance." Id. [Emphasis added].

Because the State owns the riverbeds and the minerals underneath the riverbeds in Texas, the boundary of the riverbed is critical in determining the rights of the State, riparian mineral interest owners, and riparian surface owners. See TEX. PARKS & WILD. CODE § 1.011(c); see also TEX. NAT. RES. CODE §§ 11.041(a)(1), 51.011 (providing that the Permanent School Fund includes the mineral estate in riverbeds).

To determine whether the actions of the defendants in Dowell proximately caused Dowell's suicide we analyzed both factors of the cause-in-fact element of proximate cause: whether the actions were a substantial factor in bringing about the suicide and whether, but for the actions, the suicide would not have occurred. In this case we need only consider the but-for factor. That is, we consider whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the finding that absent the negligence of Dr. Rodriguez-Escobar-but for his negligence-Goss would not have committed suicide.

Rodriguez-Escobar v. Goss (Texas Supreme Court 2013)

A vested rights permit insulates pending development from most future ordinance changes. But certain floodplain regulation changes apply retroactively even against vested rights holders. See TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE §§ 245.002, 245.004(9).

Section 554.002 of the Whistleblower Act provides:

(a) A state or local governmental entity may not suspend or terminate the employment of, or take other adverse personnel action against, a public employee who in good faith reports a violation of law by the employing governmental entity or another public employee to an appropriate law enforcement authority.

(b) In this section, a report is made to an appropriate law enforcement authority if the authority is part of a state or local governmental entity or of the federal government that the employee in good faith believes is authorized to:

(1) regulate under or enforce the law alleged to be violated in the report; or

(2) investigate or prosecute a violation of criminal law.

Trial courts possess the inherent power to modify final injunctive orders to enforce a judgment or accommodate changed conditions. We apply a two-step inquiry when reviewing the grant or denial of a such a motion. First, we must consider whether the evidence shows actual changed circumstances. 

Absent changed circumstances, a trial court lacks the authority to modify a final, permanent injunction. Id. Second, if relevant circumstances have changed, we must determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in ruling upon the requested modification.

Modification of an injunction may be appropriate when changed circumstances render an injunction "unnecessary or improper." We have said that "[w]hen the issue is whether changed circumstances warrant a modification of prior injunctive orders, a balancing of equities is not only appropriate but is also required." 

RELA provides a party may not maintain an action to recover a commission for the sale or purchase of real estate unless the promise or memorandum on which the action is based is in writing. TEX. OCC. CODE ANN. § 1101.806(c). Strict compliance with RELA is required; an agreement to pay a real estate commission must be in writing to be enforceable. Lathem v. Kruse, 290 S.W.3d 922, 925 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2009, no pet.).