In re BP Products North America Inc. from Galveston County and the First District Court of Appeals, Houston For relator: Katherine Mackillop, Houston For real party in interest: David W. Holman, Houston The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the issue of whether apex-deposition doctrine protects retired CEO. A principal issue in this case involving deposition of a retired chief executive officer is whether the apex-deposition doctrine that protects a company's highest officers from harassing depositions, absent actual and pertinent knowledge, applies to a retired CEO. BP sought mandamus relief when plaintiffs got an order allowing BP's then CEO, John Browne, to be deposed in a lawsuit over the Texas City refinery explosion. The court of appeals denied BP's mandamus petition. When Browne resigned in May after admitting perjury in a British court, the plaintiffs moved to dismiss as moot the company's mandamus petition. BP resists that motion. Justice Gaultney sitting by appointment pursuant to Section 22.005 of the Texas Government Code.07-0119

07-0010 Galveston Central Appraisal District v. TRQ Captain's Landing, L.P., and American Housing Foundation from Galveston County and the First District Court of Appeals, Houston For petitioner: Michael B. Hughes, Galveston For respondents: John Ben Blanchard, Amarillo The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the issue of whether a community housing agency may claim an ad valorem tax exemption for property to which it holds equitable title but legal title is held by its development subsidiaries. The issue is whether a community housing agency may claim an ad valorem tax exemption for property to which it holds equitable title but legal title is held by a wholly owned development subsidiary. Together with TRQ Captain's Landing, its subsidiary, American Housing Foundation sued the appraisal district over the district's denial of a property-tax exemption for apartments to which TRQ held legal title. Under state tax law, such an exemption may be granted only to a qualified non-profit community housing-development organization that owns property for sale or lease to low- or moderate-income people. Galveston County Appraisal District argues that it holds equitable title in the apartments and that its intent in forming the subsidiary, to develop low-income housing, complies with the Legislature's intent for tax exemptions. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appraisal district. The court of appeals reversed.

09-0236 State of Texas v. K.E.W. from Galveston County and the First District Court of Appeals, Houston For petitioner: Donald S. Glywasky, Galveston For respondent: Thomas W. McQuage, Galveston The principal issue in this challenge to an involuntary commitment order was whether the appeals court correctly applied the clear-and-convincing standard to assess likelihood of serious harm to others. K.E.W., suffering schizophrenia and at times agitated, came to a mental-health clinic looking for a specific staff member whom he said he wanted to impregnate. Aliens implanted a computer chip in him, he explained, because he was chosen to populate a new human race. The trial court ordered him committed, but the appeals court held that his talk without more than agitation was not an overt act that was clear and convincing evidence of serious harm to himself or others. The state argues that the court of appeals only needed to find a scintilla of evidence to support the commitment order and not an elevated review standard. 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

08-0751 Texas Mutual Insurance Co. v. Timothy J. Ruttiger from Galveston County and the First District Court of Appeals, Houston For petitioner: Pete Schenkkan, Austin For respondent: Byron C. Keeling, Houston Among principal issues in this workers-compensation case alleging bad faith under the Insurance Code and common law are (1) whether an injury became an independent injury under Aranda v. Insurance Company of North America when it was aggravated because the insurer initially refused to cover it; (2) whether the worker exhausted his administrative remedies when the parties entered a "benefit dispute agreement" that the injury was covered; (3) whether lawsuits allowed under the Insurance Code apply to workers-compensation claims; and (4) whether common-law duties of good faith and fair dealing were abolished by post-Aranda Labor Code amendments. In this case Ruttiger sued after he was denied workers-comp benefits for a hernia he claimed he suffered when lifting heavy objects at work. Texas Mutual decided to investigate the claim after Ruttiger's boss, who initially signed his workers-comp claim, later told the insurer she heard Ruttiger suffered the injury playing softball. Without investigating more, the insurance company adjustor denied Ruttiger's claim. In the first-stage administrative review of the denied claim, Ruttiger and Texas Mutual agreed on a "benefit dispute agreement" that paid him benefits. The trial court awarded damages on Insurance Code violations and gave alternative remedies on common law and Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims if the Insurance Code remedies failed on appeal. The appeals court affirmed. 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

Among the principal issues are (1) whether the appeals court improperly dismissed a declaratory-relief claim after the state disclaimed ownership before trial to a private beach; (2) whether the state unconstitutionally took property by leasing the private beach and by replacing the private owners' names with the state's on tax rolls; and (3) whether the "no self-help" rule applies in Texas to allow the dry-beach property owner to claim ownership of beach property the state rebuilt that extended the dry beach seaward from the definitive tide line. In this case, involving the state's actions over dry-beach property Porretto claimed in front of the Galveston Seawall, she sought to declare her property rights after the state leased parts of her beach to third parties. When she tried to sell her property, Porretto contends, she couldn't because the state's actions clouded her title and argues that the leases still encumber the property despite the state's ownership disclaimer. The trial court declared title in Porretto's favor, found the state's actions amounted to an unconstitutional taking and awarded Porretto $5 million. The appeals court reversed the title declarations and ordered that Porretto take nothing.

A principal issue is whether the insurer is liable for demolition and rebuilding costs prompted by Galveston's mandate that an apartment complex be razed because of hurricane damage. Owners of The Pointe sued for contract breach, deceptive-trade practices and insurance-code violations after Lexington, the primary insurer, determined that the complex was substantially damaged by flooding or by a combination of wind and flooding damage, both of which the policy excluded. Reviewing jury findings that Lexington acted in bad faith by denying the claim, the appeals court reversed, concluding in part that the apartment-complex owners failed to show that substantial damage to the complex - 50 percent or more - was caused by wind alone, a covered cause. Under the policy Lexington agreed to pay for costs imposed by ordinance or law, but the court of appeals held that Galveston's requirement that the complex be demolished must have been based on substantial damage from wind alone.

In this wrongful-death case, brought after a father and his two children drowned in a riptide, the issues are (1) whether the appeals court, in granting the city's jurisdictional plea under the Tort Claims Act and Recreational Use Statute, misapplied the review standard that every reasonable inference should favor jurisdiction and (2) whether the court erred by determining the deaths resulted from a naturally occurring condition. Suarez argues that her jurisdictional evidence showed the beach's artificial construction combined with natural conditions to create a particular danger and that the city failed to replace warning signs after Hurricane Ike destroyed them near where the drownings occurred.

The issues in this equal-and-uniform-taxation challenge are (1) whether the trial court has jurisdiction if the property owner only challenges certain component parts of the property, each with a separately assigned tax account, but not all; (2) whether the owner must prove the component parts can be separately valued apart from those parts that have not been challenged; (3) whether the owner must show evidence (and by what sufficiency standard) explaining the exclusion of unchallenged component parts; and (4) whether evidence of other refineries' valuations may be - and how so - legally sufficient to support an equal-and-uniform challenge.

In this case, involving a district court's order to set a court administrator's salary, the issues are (1) whether the appeals court properly sanctioned the district court's order based on its inherent power, its appellate jurisdiction and its supervisory control over a commissioners court; (2) whether the district court's order properly commanded action by one commissioner that the commissioners court as a whole must take; and (3) whether the appeals court erred by upholding a temporary injunction and bond that arguably were not properly ordered or approved.

The principal issues in this rental-equipment appraisal challenge are (1) whether the appeals court's remand to determine reasonableness improperly relegated to the jury a statute's constitutionality; (2) whether the appraisal district's constitutional challenge to Tax Code section 23.1241 is as-applied or facial; and (3) whether this Tax Code section is constitutional.

In this production dispute the principal issue is whether a party - in this case, the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association - waives attorney-client privilege to documents provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for an expert who also is the party's employee.

In this tax dispute the issues are (1) whether public open-enrollment charter schools that use state money to lease campus property are exempt from ad-valorem taxes under Texas law and (2) whether the appeals court improperly interpreted Texas Education Code section 12.128 - providing such leased property to be public property "for all purposes" under state law - to apply only when a charter school's charter is revoked.

At issue in this case is whether a court of appeals can abuse its discretion by declining to hear a permissive interlocutory appeal without providing its reasoning.

The issues in this case are whether a party's characterization as a "unit of local government" as classified by the Texas Tort Claims Act is a question of law or fact, and further, whether the TTCA's damages caps limit the Act's waiver of immunity from suit.

At issue in this breach-of-contract case is whether League City's entering into an agreement with Jimmy Changas, Inc., for the construction of a restaurant was a governmental action such that the City is immune from suit or a proprietary action.

The issue in this case is whether an arbitration agreement in a recorded deed runs with the land and therefore binds the home's successive purchasers.