The following are summaries of selected civil opinions issued by the Third Court of Appeals during May 2025. The summaries are an overview; please review the entire opinion. Subsequent histories are current as of June 10, 2025.
IMMUNITY: Court holds immunity is waived for dog-bite injury.
City of Austin v. Miller, No. 03-24-00385-CV (Tex. App.—Austin May 1, 2025, no pet. h.). Miller sued City for injuries from a dog bite during an adoption event hosted by City’s Animal Center. City knew of the dog’s dangerous propensities before the event. The trial court denied City’s plea to the jurisdiction. As to Miller’s negligent-handling claim, the court of appeals noted that CPRC § 101.021(2) waives immunity for injuries proximately caused by the use of tangible personal property. The court concluded that City used the dog to entice people to adopt and donate to the shelter as part of City’s animal-control duties. The court held City’s immunity was waived and that City’s use of the dog at the event proximately caused Miller’s injuries. The court held that City’s immunity was not waived for Miller’s strict-liability claim. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Court holds rule that precludes judicial review is invalid.
Morath v. Tex. State Teachers Assoc., No. 03-23-00279-CV (Tex. App.—Austin May 21, 2025, no pet. h.). TSTA sued Commissioner challenging the validity of an administrative rule. The trial court granted summary judgment for TSTA finding the rule invalid. The court of appeals observed that Chapter 39 of the Education Code authorizes Commissioner to implement interventions for underperforming campuses by contracting with an operating partner. Commissioner adopted Rule 97.1075 which gives the operating partner “final” and “sole” authority over district employees. TSTA contended the rule limits the contractual and statutory rights of public-school teachers, in particular, the right to a grievance proceeding for improper administrative actions. The court of appeals concluded that conferring “sole” or “final” authority renders the decisionmaker’s decision unreviewable. Thus, the court held that the rule imposes restrictions inconsistent with statutory provisions. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
CONTRACTS: Court reverses judgment awarding realtor a commission on a cancelled contract.
Schey v. Copper, No. 03-24-00321-CV (Tex. App.—Austin May 30, 2025, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). Using Copper as their realtor, buyers contracted to purchase a home in Austin but within the option period, cancelled the contract. During the option period, buyers contacted another realtor and purchased a home in San Marcos. Copper sued alleging buyers breached the representation agreement and sought the commission he would have received had buyers not terminated the contract. The trial court granted Copper’s motion for summary judgment and denied buyer’s motion. The court of appeals concluded that the contract did not contemplate a buyer being liable for a commission without a sale or the buyers’ breach. Because buyers timely terminated the contract, Copper would not have received any commission regardless of whether buyers communicated with another realtor. Thus, the court concluded Copper suffered no damages. The court reversed, rendered, and remanded buyers’ attorney’s fees claim.
TRIAL PROCEDURE: Court reverses dismissal where county clerk failed to process a timely-filed fee.
Yang v. Lyons, No. 03-24-00040-CV (Tex. App.—Austin May 2, 2025, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). A justice-court jury awarded Lyons damages and attorney’s fees against Yang. Yang’s attorney filed an appeal bond, which was approved the same day. Yang’s attorney then timely e-filed the appellate fee. Yang’s attorney later received an e-filing system message that the fee cannot be paid through e-file and must be paid by credit card over the phone. The trial court dismissed the appeal for failure to pay the costs of appeal within Rule 143a’s 20-day deadline. The court of appeals concluded that Yang’s attorney did not fail to timely pay costs; the clerk failed to process payment using the card Yang’s attorney had on file. According to the court, documents filed electronically are deemed filed when successfully transmitted, even if the filing is not accepted due to a technical error. The court reversed and remanded.