Cases

EVELYN V. KEYES, Justice. Relator, the City of Houston, has petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus, seeking review of the trial court’s order granting a new trial and denying the City’s motion for judgment on the verdict. The majority conditionally grants the City’s mandamus petition and orders the trial court to withdraw its new trial order and to render judgment on the jury verdict. I dissent. No fin

OPINION MARC W. BROWN, Justice. Appellants, Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Co., BNSF Railway Co., and Union Pacific Railroad Co., (collectively, the “Railroads”) present this accelerated appeal from the trial court’s order partially sustaining the plea to the jurisdiction filed by appellees, the City of Houston, Texas (the “City”), and Daniel Krueger, in his official capacity as Director of Public Wo

353 S.W.3d 499 (2011) CITY OF HOUSTON, Appellant, v. Joslyn M. JOHNSON, Individually and as Executrix for the Estate of Rodney Johnson, Deceased, Appellee. No. 14-10-01098-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.). August 16, 2011. *501 Jaqueline I. Leguizamon, Judith Saldana Lee Ramsey, Bertrand L. Pourteau, II, Lynett

Justice WILLETT delivered the opinion of the Court. Does a firefighter who refuses to fight fires have a “disability” under either state or federal law? We answer no and therefore reverse the court of appeals’ judgment in part. A. Background Shayn Proler was a firefighter with the Houston fire department. He

OPINION JIM SHARP, Justice. This interlocutory appeal arises from a suit for writ of mandamus brought under the Texas Public Information Act (“TPIA”). Randall Kallinen and Paul Ku-bosh (“appellees”) filed a mandamus suit against the City of Houston (“the City”) *816 seeking

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 1, 2003 Session JUDITH LYNN SILVEY v. DARRELL C. SILVEY Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamilton County No. 00-0572 Frank Brown, III, Chancellor FILED MARCH 16, 2004 No. E2003-00586-COA-R3-CV In this divorce case t

Justice Willett, joined by Justice Devine, concurring. A leader is someone who helps improve the lives of other people or improve the system they live under.1 —Sam Houston I join the Court’s opinion but write separately to underscore one important thing: The city that bears President Houston’s name, while prevailing on the takings

EVELYN V. KEYES, Justice, dissenting. Appellee, Downstream Environmental, L.L.C. (“Downstream”), claims that it is entitled to damages and equitable relief for harm it alleges it suffered when appellant, the City of Houston (“the City”), temporarily closed the discharge. line from Downstream’s liquid waste disposal facility into the City’s sewer system without notice, kept the discharge line shut for twenty-seven

OPINION LAURA CARTER HIGLEY, Justice. This appeal concerns whether the trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a suit brought by John Klumb and five other plaintiffs against the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (“HMEPS”) and five members of its board *209of trustees. The trial court granted HMEPS’s and the trustees’ plea to the

Justice Guzman delivered the opinion of the Court. The dispute in this case arises in the context of a unique statutory scheme that confers expansive administrative authority and broadly prohibits judicial review. At issue is whether Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (HMEPS) board members violated HMEPS’s enabling statute by requiring the petitioners’ continued participation in the City of Houston’s def

668 F.3d 291 (2012) CITY OF HOUSTON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, v. Randall Kubosh; Francis Kubosh, Amici Curiae-Appellants. No. 11-20068. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. January 24, 2012. *292 David M. Feldman, Bertrand Lloyd Pourteau, II (argued), Judith Le

JUSTICE BOYD, dissenting in part. The City of Houston adopted an ordinance to address the problem of air pollution in the Houston area. Among other things, the Ordinance: (1) prohibits certain facilities that emit airborne contaminants from violating certain “state air pollution control laws,” which the Ordinance expressly incorporates “as they currently are and as they may be changed

542 F.Supp.2d 617 (2008) SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF HOUSTON, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. H-06-3309. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. March 31, 2008. *624 Jonathan D. Weissglass, Katherine M. Pollock, Altshuler Berzon LLP, San Francisco, CA, Patrick M.

PER CURIAM OPINION PER CURIAM Appellees Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks (collectively, Appellees) sued to enjoin Mayor Annise Parker and the City of Houston (collectively, the City) from providing employee benefits to the same-sex spouses of employees légally married in ánother state. Appellees relied on provisions of the Texas Constitution and Family Code ban

OPINION Sherry Radack, Chief Justice This is an appeal from a judgment awarding demolition costs and attorneys’ fees to the City of Houston from three property owners — appellants Andrew Whallon, Dalia Garcia, and Richard Gra-yshaw — for their proportional share of the total costs associated with demolition of a condominium complex. We reverse and render

OPINION Tracy Christopher, Justice This is an appeal from a final judgment in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. The parties elected to submit their *786dispute to binding, arbitration, but after the arbitrator issued her. award, the trial court vacated the award upon finding that the arbitrator had exceeded her authority. The main iss

Justice LEHRMANN delivered the opinion of the Court. We must decide whether the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA) preempts a Houston ordinance. The City denied Southern Crushed Concrete’s (SCC) municipal permit application to move a concrete-crushing facility to a new location, even though the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality had previously issued a permit a

PER CURIAM The Texas Public Information Act (“PIA”), Chapter 552 of the Texas Government Code, “guarantees access to public information, subject to certain exceptions.” Tex. Dep’t Pub. Safety v. Cox Tex. Newspapers, L.P., 343 S.W.3d 112, 114 (Tex.2011). The PIA provides that when a governmental body receives a written request for information for which it wishes

PER CURIAM. Tommy Ray Robinson appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law in his action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion, as supported by its reasons as stated from the bench, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Robinso

PER CURIAM. The City of Houston was sued and filed a plea to the jurisdiction. When its plea was denied, the City did not appeal. Several months later it filed an amended plea to the jurisdiction, then filed this interlocutory appeal from the denial of its amended plea. The court of appeals dismissed part of the appeal, but considered the merits of part of it.