10-0451? Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America v. William Justiss, et al.? from Lamar County and the Sixth District Court of Appeals, Texarkana? For petitioner: Brett Busby, Houston? For respondents: James R. Rodgers, Paris? The issues are (1) whether sufficient evidence supported permanent nuisance claims that accrued within the two-year statutory limitations; (2) whether property owners' testimony was sufficient to support diminution-in-value damage to their property; and (3) whether prejudgment interest was proper if plaintiffs did not segregate past and future damages. In this case Justiss and other property owners sued over what they claim was "unbearable" noise and odor from a natural gas-compressor station built in 1992. Noise and odor complaints began shortly after the station began oprating. Justiss filed suit two months after the state cited the compressor station in 1998 for exceeding permitted emissions levels. After a jury trial, the trial court awarded more than $2.2 million for declining property values and almost $650,000 in interest. The court of appeals affirmed, holding sufficient evidence supported 1998 as the date the cause of action accrued. 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

The principal issues are (1) whether legally sufficient evidence supported the "best interest" standard for terminating a deported Mexican citizen's parental rights despite his continuing support for his children and visits with them with help from relatives since his deportation and (2) whether legally sufficient evidence supported the endangerment standard when that evidence was based in part on the father's conviction for criminal activity with a minor a decade earlier. This case involves a father who left Wisconsin before his probation ended, then was arrested for probation violation in Texas when he sought to renew an immigrant-work permit and eventually deported. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's termination order.

The principal issues are (1) whether a health care-liability defendant who has not been served with process can be served as a party with an expert report to meet the statutory requirement for medical-malpractice claim; (2) if so, whether the expert report was properly served by certified mail; and (3) whether the plaintiff may be entitled to a due-diligence exception to the 120-day deadline if the report was not properly served. In this case Lane sent his expert report to Dr. Zanchi by certified mail to the hospital where the alleged negligence occurred and several other addresses. A receipt for only the one sent to the hospital was returned. Three previous attempts to serve process on Zanchi failed, but Lane's attorney did not determine that Zanchi was never served process until he readied service of the expert report and chose to serve it by certified mail. Zanchi was personally served with process 28 days past the statutory deadline for the expert report after the trial ordered substituted service. After a hearing, the trial court denied Zanchi's dismissal motion. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court in a split decision, with one dissent.