The Supreme Court of Texas will hold oral arguments beginning at 9 a.m. on September 10, 11, and 12. Below is the schedule of cases.

Oral arguments are streamed live and preserved on the Supreme Court's YouTube page. The public may also attend in person in the Supreme Court courtroom, 201 W. 14th St., Austin.

In the Matter of the Marriage of Benavides

The issues in this case are (1) whether, and in what circumstances, a guardian may petition for divorce on behalf of a ward; and (2) the effect of one spouse’s death on the appeal from a divorce decree.

For petitioner: Douglas W. Alexander

(Alexander Dubose & Jefferson LLP), Austin 

For respondent: Richard R. Orsinger (Orsinger, Nelson, Downing & Anderson, LLP), San Antonio 

Read the case summary.

View the case documents.

City of Austin v. Powell

At issue in this case is whether a police officer in a high-speed chase acted with reckless disregard such that the emergency exception under the Texas Tort Claims Act does not apply and immunity is waived.

For petitioner: Hannah M. Vahl (City of Austin

Law Department), Austin

For respondent: Geoffrey N. Courtney

(Attorney at Law), San Antonio

Read the case summary.

View the case documents.

City of Houston v. Rodriguez

At issue in this case is whether a police officer acted with reckless disregard such that the Texas Tort Claims Act’s emergency exception does not apply, and whether the officer acted in good faith such that he is entitled to official immunity.

For petitioner: Christy L. Martin (City of

Houston Legal Department), Houston 

For respondents: Robert A. McAllister Jr.

(Robert A. McAllister Jr. & Associates, P.C.), Houston 

Read the case summary.

View the case documents.

In the interest of J.Y.O., a child

At issue in this case is the trial court’s characterization and division of a discretionary bonus, retirement account, and marital residence.

For petitioner: Michelle Mary O'Neil (O'Neil

Wysocki, P.C.), Frisco

For respondents: Jodi L. Bender (Duffee +

Eitzen, LLP), from Dallas

Read the case summary. 

View the case documents.

Tex. Tech Univ. Health Scis. Ctr.-El Paso v. Flores

The issue in this case is whether the trial court should have granted Tech’s plea to the jurisdiction on the plaintiff’s age-discrimination claim.

For petitioner: Joshua C. Fiveson (Office of the

Attorney General), Austin

For respondent: Jason C.N. Smith (Law Offices

of Jason Smith), Fort Worth

Read the case summary.

View the case documents.

Pitts v. Rivas

At issue is whether a plaintiff can maintain fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims against his accountants.

For petitioners: Katherine Elrich (Cobb

Martinez Woodward, PLLC), Dallas 

For respondent: Joyce W. Lindauer (Joyce W.

Lindauer Attorney, PLLC), Dallas

Read the case summary.

View the case documents.

Renaissance Med. Found. v. Lugo 

The issue is whether a nonprofit health organization certified under Section 162.001(b) of the Occupations Code can be held vicariously liable for the negligence of a physician employed by the organization.

For petitioner: Dale Wainwright (Greenberg Traurig, LLP), Austin

For respondent: Steven Haspel (Whitehurst Harkness Brees Cheng Alsaffar Higginbotham & Jacob, PLLC), Austin

Read the case summary.

View the case documents.

Roe v. Patterson

The principal issue in this certified-question case is whether a person can be held liable for supplying defamatory material to a publisher.

For appellant: Sheila P. Haddock (The Zalkin

Law Firm, P.C.), Austin

For appellee: Travis J. Jones and Bryan G Rutherford (Grau Law Group, PLLC), Dallas

Read the case summary.

View the case documents.

ConocoPhillips Co. v. Hahn

At issue in this case is the proper calculation of Kenneth Hahn’s royalty interest in a tract of land in DeWitt County, Texas.

For petitioner: Macey Reasoner Stokes (Baker Botts L.L.P.), Houston

For respondent: Clinton Twaddell (Branscomb PLLC), Austin

Read the case summary.

View the case documents.

Bush v. Columbia Med. Ctr. of Arlington Subsidiary, L.P.

The issue in this case is the sufficiency of an expert report supporting a health care liability claim against a hospital directly under Chapter 74 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

For petitioner: Matthew J. Kita (Attorney at Law), Dallas

For respondents: Michelle E. Robberson (Cooper & Scully, P.C.), Dallas

Read the case summary.

View the case documents.

Webster v. Comm’n for Law. Discipline

The issue in this case is whether sovereign immunity or the separation of powers doctrine protects government lawyers from professional discipline procedures arising from alleged misrepresentations made to a court.

For petitioner: Aaron L. Nielson (Office of the Attorney General), Austin

For respondent: Michael G. Graham (Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel), Austin

Read the case summary.

View the case documents.

Was this email forwarded to you? Click here to subscribe to Supreme Court advisories.

Questions about this email, reply to scotxinfo@txcourts.gov or email Director of Public Affairs Amy Starnes at amy.starnes@txcourts.gov.

Follow Supreme Court news via X (formerly Twitter) @SupremeCourt_TX and LinkedIn at Supreme Court of Texas.