The issue is whether a defendant in a third-party complaint or cross-claim must file a merit certificate as a "plaintiff" under former Civil Practices and Remedies Code section 150.002(a). That provision required a professional attest in a suit alleging defective professional services that the suit had merit. In this case Jaster, a professional engineer, moved to dismiss a third-party claim Comet filed against him and a design group for allegedly negligent foundation plans Comet used in building a house. The homeowner had sued Comet for faulty construction. In his motion to dismiss, Jaster argued that complaints against him by Comet and the design group, for which he designed the foundation plans, did not file the professional report the statute required.

09-0753 James Derwood Iliff v. Jerilyn True Iliff from Hays County and the Third District Court of Appeals, Austin For petitioner: Jeremy C. Martin, Dallas For respondent: Frank B. Suhr, New Braunfels For amicus curiae State of Texas: David S. Morales, Austin The issue is whether the Family Code provision allowing child support to be calculated on earning potential in "intentional unemployment or underemployment" requires proof that underemployment exists to avoid child support. In this case James Iliff, who after his divorce quit a job earning more than $100,000 a year, appeals a trial-court judgment calculating child support based on earning potential and his intentional underemployment. The court of appeals rejected his argument that his ex-wife must prove his unemployment is intended to avoid child support. 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

10-0321 Texas Department of Public Safety v. Stephen Joseph Caruana from Hays County and the Third District Court of Appeals, Austin For petitioner: Kevin M. Givens, Austin For respondent: Brian L. Baker, San Marcos The issue in this license-revocation appeal is whether an alcohol-breath test officer's notarized statement about breath test's result was admissible in the revocation hearing even though the analyst did not swear to it. Caruana challenged an administrative-law judge's finding that the department proved his intoxication while driving by admission of the breath-test analyst's unsworn statement. Under the relevant Texas Transportation Code provision (section 524.011(b)(4)(D)) a sworn report relevant to a drunk-driving arrest shall be sent to the department within five business days. The pertinent administrative regulation allows a sworn report to be admissible as a public record. The trial court reversed the administrative-law judge and 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

At issue in this case is whether diligence in service of process is a "statutory prerequisite to suit" for claims brought under the Tort Claims Act.

These cases address whether public universities can revoke degrees of former students.

The issue in these cases is the applicability of the Texas Citizens Participation Act to a motion to compel discovery that includes a request for attorney's fees.