This morning, the Supreme Court of Texas issued a corrected opinion in one case and granted one petition for review. Access the complete order list here.
The Court issued a corrected opinion in No. 12-0163, In re Fisher. We covered the original opinion here. The Court's staff attorney for public information summarized the changes:
Forum is changed to venue in compound modifiers and other references through the opinion, specifically on pages 1, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 20; on page 8 much of the second paragraph under section IV has been deleted; references on page 16 to Sauder v. Rayman, 800 So.2d 355 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001), changed; and on page 19 venue changed to forum in first paragraph under section VI.
It appears that these changes were made in response to an amicus curiae letter filed by three law professors. (Access the letter here.) The letter pointed out that the court may have inadvertently confused "forum" with "venue," and the professors were concerned that this would cause confusion in the law.
The Court also granted one petition for review, No. 12-0920, Hooks v. Samson Lone Star, LP. This complicated oil and gas dispute includes the following issues: (1) whether the plaintiffs acted with reasonable diligence such that the statute of limitations for their fraudulent inducement claim was tolled; (2) whether the court of appeals' disposition of the fraud claim can be affirmed on alternative grounds that the court of appeals did not consider; (3) whether the court of appeals erred in its construction of a "most favored nations" clause related to royalties, in particular, whether a pooling agreement triggered the clause; (4) whether the plaintiffs ratified an amendment to a pooling agreement by accepting the higher royalty checks that resulted from the amendment; (5) whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the plaintiffs' claim for breach of offset obligations is barred by the statute of limitations; (6) whether the court of appeals erred in reversing an award of attorneys' fees; and (7) the proper post-judgment interest rate for the damages that were affirmed by the court of appeals.
The date for oral argument has not yet been set.
- Rich Phillips, Thompson & Knight
Comments