08-0444 Myrad Properties Inc. v. LaSalle Bank National Association from Bell County and the Third District Court of Appeals, Austin For petitioner: Miguel S. Rodriguez, Austin For respondents: Keith M. Aurzada, Dallas In this action to set aside a property sale following foreclosure the principal issues are (1) whether the foreclosure notice was sufficient, given that two properties were subject to foreclosure but only one was described, and (2) whether a correction deed may be used to add an additional property following a foreclosure sale. Myrad sued to declare its ownership in the larger of two apartment complexes supposedly conveyed by the foreclosure sale, arguing that the larger complex was not described in the foreclosure notice and that its indebtedness was satisfied by the foreclosure-sale proceeds. LaSalle, which held the note and bid at the sale, filed a corrected deed that included both apartment complexes in the sale. The trial court ruled for LaSalle, declaring the sale conveyed both properties and holding the correction deed valid. The court of appeals affirmed. The first argument begins at 9 a.m. in the courtroom in Austin. Each side will have 20 minutes for argument. This advisory serves only as an abbreviated guide to oral argument. Summaries are prepared by the Court's staff attorney for public information and reflect his judgment alone on facts and legal issues and in no way represent the Court's opinion about case merits. Texas Supreme Court advisory Contact: Osler McCarthy, Staff Attorney for Public Information (512) 463.1441 or email: osler.mccarthy@courts.state.tx.us

08-0970 Scott and White Memorial Hospital, et al. v. Gary and Linda Fair from Bell County and the Third District Court of Appeals, Austin For petitioners: Stuart Smith, Waco For respondents: Rick Bostwick and Rick Brophy, Waco In this slip-and-fall case the principal issue is which rule should be applied to determine premises liability when an invitee falls on naturally occurring ice. Gary Fair sued the hospital for injuries he suffered when he fell in an ice-covered parking lot the morning after a storm. Scott and White argues for the "Massachusetts rule" that would not impose liability. The Fairs argue for the "Connecticut rule" requiring due care to eliminate ice as a hazard. The trial court granted Scott and White summary judgment, but the appeals court reversed, holding that the hospital did not meet its burden to show the ice was in its natural condition. The first argument begins at 9 a.m. in the courtroom in Austin. Each side will have 20 minutes for argument. This advisory serves only as an abbreviated guide to oral argument. Summaries are prepared by the Court's staff attorney for public information and reflect his judgment alone on facts and legal issues and in no way represent the Court's opinion about case merits. Texas Supreme Court advisory Contact: Osler McCarthy, Staff Attorney for Public Information (512) 463.1441 or email: osler.mccarthy@courts.state.tx.us

10-0859 In the Matter of M.P.A. from Bell County and the Third District Court of Appeals, Austin For petitioner: Dustin Howell, Austin, and Clint Broden, Dallas For respondent: James (Jim) V. Murphy and John Gauntt Jr., Belton In this juvenile-delinquency habeas-corpus review two principal issues are (1) whether the trial court erred by denying habeas relief on post-conviction evidence that a psychologist falsely testified about testing reliability by which he concluded the juvenile sex offender had pedophile propensities (and would likely offend again) and (2) whether habeas relief should have been granted on actual-innocence grounds because the complainant later recanted. Central to both issues are the differing appellate-review standards in each. In this case M.P.A. sought habeas relief because a cousin recanted her testimony that he sexually abused her when she was 7 and he was 15. He also claimed the psychologist called during his sentencing falsely testified that a test by which he concluded M.P.A. had pedophile tendencies was more reliable that it was. On review, the appeals court rejected both claims, noting for the recanted-evidence claim that conflicting evidence about reasons the cousin recanted her testimony failed the required clear-and-convincing-evidence standard for habeas relief. But on the testing-reliability claim, the court of appeals determined that M.P.A. had to show by a preponderance of evidence that the psychologist's testimony influenced the jury's decision on a 20-year sentence and that the expert testimony would have been excluded without the psychologist's false statements. This advisory serves only as an abbreviated guide to oral argument. Summaries are prepared by the Court's staff attorney for public information and reflect his judgment alone on facts and legal issues and in no way represent the Court's opinion about case merits. Texas Supreme Court advisory Contact: Osler McCarthy, Staff Attorney for Public Information (512) 463.1441 or email: osler.mccarthy@courts.state.tx.us

In this tort-claims act case, the principal issues are (1) whether the city did not lose its immunity protection against a fatal accident because it did not have actual notice of the claim and (2) whether the basis of that protection found by the court of appeals, Cathey v. Booth and its progeny, should be overruled.

The main issue on appeal is whether the court of appeals erred in reversing the trial court's order granting summary judgment on Dawn Thompson's retaliation claim by failing to properly analyze causation.