In this dog-bite case, by a military-contractor employee against another contractor that supplied bomb-sniffing dogs and its animal supplier, principal issues are (1) whether the trial court erred by designating the Army as a responsible third party (and, if not, whether the injury claims fall under the political-question doctrine); (2) whether the Federal Tort Claims Act's combatant-activities exception preempts the injury claims; (3) whether American K-9 has official immunity by delegation of a government function; (4) whether the trial court erred by denying the plaintiff Freeman her request to replead her claims; and (5) whether the appeals court erred by reversing dismissal of claims against Hill Country Dog Center, which supplied the dogs to American K-9.

The issues in this case, in which a policyholder agreed to pay $100,000 more to settle a claim than her insurer was willing to agree to, are (1) whether the appeals court abused its discretion by denying mandamus relief from the trial court's refusal to dismiss the insured's Stowers claim and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to dismiss the insured's breach-of-contract claim when the policy expressly allows the insurer to defend or settle the case as it "considers appropriate." Longoria, the insured, alleges in part Farmers mishandled her defense by not designating damages experts before trial.

Principal issues are (1) whether a declaratory-judgment action is proper to determine a deed without warranty or an easement's existence and (2) whether failure to attach evidence to a summary-judgment motion constitutes substantive error requiring reversal.

John Leland, D.D.S. v. George C. Brandal and Ruth L. Brandal from Bandera County and the Fourth District Court of Appeals, San Antonio For petitioner: Kathryn A. Stephens, San Antonio For respondents: Beth Squires, San Antonio The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the issue of whether appeals court that held med-mal expert report deficient can remand for extension to cure defect. The principal issues are (1) whether an appeals court that holds a medical-expert report deficient can remand for consideration of a 30-day extension to file an adequate report or must render judgment for the defendant and, if the appellate court can remand, (2) whether the plaintiff waived the extension by filing supplemental expert reports within time limits upon the defendant's objection to the original reports. In this case Leland objected to the adequacy of two expert reports the Brandals served. The Brandals then filed supplemental reports before the 120-day deadline expired. The trial court denied Leland's objection to the supplemented expert reports. When the court of appeals reversed, it remanded the case to consider a 30-day extension to cure the defect. The case also presents a jurisdictional question - whether the interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court can be heard by the Court, based on whether a concurring opinion in the court of appeals creates a conflict in this case.