Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline
Headline: Texas Supreme Court Clears AG Paxton in Lawyer Discipline Case
Citation:
Brief at a Glance
Texas Supreme Court clears AG Ken Paxton of professional misconduct, finding insufficient evidence of knowing assistance in client's alleged illegal acts.
- Attorneys must have actual knowledge of a client's criminal or fraudulent intent to be disciplined for assisting.
- The Commission for Lawyer Discipline must prove 'assistance' and 'knowledge' by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Mere representation or advice on legal strategy is not sufficient to prove a violation of Rule 1.02(c).
Case Summary
Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, decided by Texas Supreme Court on February 14, 2025, resulted in a defendant win outcome. The Texas Supreme Court reviewed a disciplinary action against Attorney General Ken Paxton, who was accused of violating professional conduct rules by assisting a former client in a bribery scheme. The court found that Paxton's actions did not constitute a violation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically regarding assisting a client in conduct the lawyer knows to be criminal or fraudulent. The court reversed the lower court's decision, finding insufficient evidence to support the disciplinary findings against Paxton. The court held: The court held that the Commission for Lawyer Discipline failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Paxton knowingly assisted his former client in conduct that he knew to be criminal or fraudulent, as required by Rule 1.02(c).. The court found that the evidence presented did not establish that Paxton knew his former client was engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct when he advised him, thus not violating the disciplinary rule.. The court reversed the trial court's judgment, which had found Paxton in violation of the rules, because the evidence was legally insufficient to support that finding.. The court clarified that the standard of proof in lawyer disciplinary proceedings is a preponderance of the evidence, and the Commission did not meet this burden.. The court determined that Paxton's actions, as described in the record, did not rise to the level of knowingly assisting in criminal or fraudulent conduct.. This decision reinforces the high burden of proof required in attorney disciplinary proceedings, particularly concerning the 'knowing assistance' element. It highlights the importance of specific evidence demonstrating an attorney's actual knowledge of client misconduct, rather than mere suspicion or inference, to avoid professional sanctions.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Case Analysis — Multiple Perspectives
Plain English (For Everyone)
The Texas Supreme Court ruled that Attorney General Ken Paxton did not violate professional conduct rules when he advised a former client. The court found there wasn't enough evidence to prove Paxton knew his client was involved in illegal activity or that Paxton helped the client commit a crime. Therefore, the disciplinary action against Paxton was dismissed.
For Legal Practitioners
The Texas Supreme Court reversed a disciplinary finding against Attorney General Ken Paxton, holding the Commission for Lawyer Discipline failed to prove a violation of Rule 1.02(c) by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court emphasized the need for specific proof of the lawyer's knowledge of the client's criminal or fraudulent intent and that the lawyer's actions constituted 'assistance.' Insufficient evidence of Paxton's knowledge and intent led to the reversal.
For Law Students
This case, Paxton v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, illustrates the high burden of proof required in attorney disciplinary proceedings. The Texas Supreme Court de novo reviewed whether Paxton 'assisted or counseled' a client in conduct he 'knew' was criminal. The Court found the evidence insufficient to establish Paxton's knowledge of his client's criminal intent or that his actions constituted assistance, leading to a reversal of the disciplinary finding.
Newsroom Summary
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has been cleared of professional misconduct charges by the state's Supreme Court. The court found insufficient evidence that Paxton knowingly assisted a former client in illegal activities, reversing a lower ruling that had found him in violation of attorney conduct rules.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- The court held that the Commission for Lawyer Discipline failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Paxton knowingly assisted his former client in conduct that he knew to be criminal or fraudulent, as required by Rule 1.02(c).
- The court found that the evidence presented did not establish that Paxton knew his former client was engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct when he advised him, thus not violating the disciplinary rule.
- The court reversed the trial court's judgment, which had found Paxton in violation of the rules, because the evidence was legally insufficient to support that finding.
- The court clarified that the standard of proof in lawyer disciplinary proceedings is a preponderance of the evidence, and the Commission did not meet this burden.
- The court determined that Paxton's actions, as described in the record, did not rise to the level of knowingly assisting in criminal or fraudulent conduct.
Key Takeaways
- Attorneys must have actual knowledge of a client's criminal or fraudulent intent to be disciplined for assisting.
- The Commission for Lawyer Discipline must prove 'assistance' and 'knowledge' by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Mere representation or advice on legal strategy is not sufficient to prove a violation of Rule 1.02(c).
- Document all client communications and advice, especially when dealing with potentially sensitive matters.
- Understand the specific elements required to prove a violation of professional conduct rules.
Deep Legal Analysis
Standard of Review
De Novo review. The Texas Supreme Court reviews the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Factual findings are reviewed for legal and factual sufficiency, while conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. This standard is applied because the case involves the interpretation and application of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.
Procedural Posture
The case reached the Texas Supreme Court on appeal from a lower court's decision that found Attorney General Ken Paxton violated professional conduct rules. The Commission for Lawyer Discipline sought to discipline Paxton for allegedly assisting a former client in a bribery scheme.
Burden of Proof
The Commission for Lawyer Discipline bore the burden of proof to show that Paxton violated the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. The standard of proof in attorney disciplinary proceedings is a preponderance of the evidence.
Legal Tests Applied
Assisting in Criminal or Fraudulent Conduct
Elements: A lawyer shall not assist or counsel a client to engage, or continue in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent. · The lawyer must know that the client's conduct is criminal or fraudulent. · The lawyer must assist or counsel the client in that conduct.
The Court found that the Commission failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Paxton assisted or counseled his former client, Dusty S. S. S. S., in conduct that Paxton knew to be criminal or fraudulent. The Court reasoned that the evidence did not establish that Paxton had the requisite knowledge of the client's intent to commit bribery or that Paxton's actions constituted 'assistance' in a criminal or fraudulent act.
Statutory References
| Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 1.02(c) | A lawyer shall not assist or counsel a client to engage, or continue in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent. — This rule was the central focus of the disciplinary action against Ken Paxton, as the Commission alleged he violated it by assisting a former client in a bribery scheme. |
Key Legal Definitions
Rule Statements
The Commission for Lawyer Discipline failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Paxton assisted or counseled his former client in conduct that Paxton knew was criminal or fraudulent.
The evidence does not establish that Paxton had the requisite knowledge of his client's intent to commit bribery, nor does it establish that Paxton's actions constituted 'assistance' in a criminal or fraudulent act.
Remedies
The judgment of the trial court finding Ken Paxton in violation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct is reversed.The Commission for Lawyer Discipline's action against Ken Paxton is dismissed.
Entities and Participants
Key Takeaways
- Attorneys must have actual knowledge of a client's criminal or fraudulent intent to be disciplined for assisting.
- The Commission for Lawyer Discipline must prove 'assistance' and 'knowledge' by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Mere representation or advice on legal strategy is not sufficient to prove a violation of Rule 1.02(c).
- Document all client communications and advice, especially when dealing with potentially sensitive matters.
- Understand the specific elements required to prove a violation of professional conduct rules.
Know Your Rights
Real-world scenarios derived from this court's ruling:
Scenario: You are a lawyer and your client tells you they are considering a business deal that might be ethically questionable but not explicitly illegal. You advise them on potential legal risks without encouraging the questionable action.
Your Rights: You have the right to advise clients on the legal implications of their proposed actions, as long as you do not assist or counsel them to engage in conduct you know to be criminal or fraudulent. Your advice must be based on your knowledge of the law and potential risks.
What To Do: Document your advice thoroughly, clearly stating the potential legal risks and advising against any actions that could be construed as illegal or fraudulent. Ensure your advice does not facilitate or encourage illegal conduct.
Scenario: A former client is accused of a crime, and prosecutors claim you, as their former attorney, helped them commit it. They are trying to use your past advice against you in a disciplinary hearing.
Your Rights: As a former attorney, your right is to not be disciplined unless the disciplinary body can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that you knowingly assisted or counseled the client in criminal or fraudulent conduct. Mere advice on legal strategy or potential risks, without knowledge of criminal intent, is not sufficient grounds for discipline.
What To Do: Gather all documentation of your communications and advice to the former client. Clearly demonstrate that your advice was within the bounds of legal representation and that you lacked knowledge of any criminal intent on the client's part. Seek legal counsel to defend against disciplinary charges.
Is It Legal?
Common legal questions answered by this ruling:
Is it legal for a lawyer to advise a client who might be involved in something shady?
Depends. It is legal for a lawyer to advise a client on potential legal risks and the law. However, it is illegal for a lawyer to assist or counsel a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer *knows* is criminal or fraudulent.
This applies under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.
Practical Implications
For Attorneys in Texas
This ruling reinforces the high burden of proof required by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline. Attorneys must be aware that disciplinary actions require specific evidence of their knowledge of a client's criminal or fraudulent intent and that their actions constituted 'assistance,' not just general legal advice or representation.
For The Public
The ruling provides assurance that attorneys will not be disciplined based on mere accusations or insufficient evidence. It clarifies that legal advice, even if concerning potentially risky behavior by a client, is permissible as long as the attorney does not knowingly facilitate illegal acts.
Related Legal Concepts
Frequently Asked Questions (34)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (7)
Q: What is Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline about?
Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline is a case decided by Texas Supreme Court on February 14, 2025.
Q: What court decided Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline?
Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline was decided by the Texas Supreme Court, which is part of the TX state court system. This is a state supreme court.
Q: When was Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline decided?
Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline was decided on February 14, 2025.
Q: What is the citation for Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline?
The citation for Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.
Q: What was the main issue in the Paxton v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline case?
The main issue was whether Attorney General Ken Paxton violated Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 1.02(c) by assisting a former client in conduct he knew to be criminal or fraudulent. The Texas Supreme Court reviewed the evidence presented by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline.
Q: What was the outcome of the case for Ken Paxton?
The Texas Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and dismissed the disciplinary action against Ken Paxton, finding that the Commission for Lawyer Discipline failed to prove its case.
Q: What is the role of the Commission for Lawyer Discipline?
The Commission for Lawyer Discipline is the entity responsible for investigating and prosecuting alleged violations of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct by attorneys in Texas.
Legal Analysis (14)
Q: Is Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline published?
Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.
Q: What topics does Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline cover?
Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline covers the following legal topics: Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Attorney ethics and professional responsibility, Misconduct in real estate transactions, Dishonesty and misrepresentation by attorneys, Abuse of influence by public officials, Standard of proof in attorney disciplinary proceedings.
Q: What was the ruling in Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline?
The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline. Key holdings: The court held that the Commission for Lawyer Discipline failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Paxton knowingly assisted his former client in conduct that he knew to be criminal or fraudulent, as required by Rule 1.02(c).; The court found that the evidence presented did not establish that Paxton knew his former client was engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct when he advised him, thus not violating the disciplinary rule.; The court reversed the trial court's judgment, which had found Paxton in violation of the rules, because the evidence was legally insufficient to support that finding.; The court clarified that the standard of proof in lawyer disciplinary proceedings is a preponderance of the evidence, and the Commission did not meet this burden.; The court determined that Paxton's actions, as described in the record, did not rise to the level of knowingly assisting in criminal or fraudulent conduct..
Q: Why is Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline important?
Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline has an impact score of 40/100, indicating moderate legal relevance. This decision reinforces the high burden of proof required in attorney disciplinary proceedings, particularly concerning the 'knowing assistance' element. It highlights the importance of specific evidence demonstrating an attorney's actual knowledge of client misconduct, rather than mere suspicion or inference, to avoid professional sanctions.
Q: What precedent does Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline set?
Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that the Commission for Lawyer Discipline failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Paxton knowingly assisted his former client in conduct that he knew to be criminal or fraudulent, as required by Rule 1.02(c). (2) The court found that the evidence presented did not establish that Paxton knew his former client was engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct when he advised him, thus not violating the disciplinary rule. (3) The court reversed the trial court's judgment, which had found Paxton in violation of the rules, because the evidence was legally insufficient to support that finding. (4) The court clarified that the standard of proof in lawyer disciplinary proceedings is a preponderance of the evidence, and the Commission did not meet this burden. (5) The court determined that Paxton's actions, as described in the record, did not rise to the level of knowingly assisting in criminal or fraudulent conduct.
Q: What are the key holdings in Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline?
1. The court held that the Commission for Lawyer Discipline failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Paxton knowingly assisted his former client in conduct that he knew to be criminal or fraudulent, as required by Rule 1.02(c). 2. The court found that the evidence presented did not establish that Paxton knew his former client was engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct when he advised him, thus not violating the disciplinary rule. 3. The court reversed the trial court's judgment, which had found Paxton in violation of the rules, because the evidence was legally insufficient to support that finding. 4. The court clarified that the standard of proof in lawyer disciplinary proceedings is a preponderance of the evidence, and the Commission did not meet this burden. 5. The court determined that Paxton's actions, as described in the record, did not rise to the level of knowingly assisting in criminal or fraudulent conduct.
Q: What cases are related to Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline?
Precedent cases cited or related to Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline: In re Thoma, 470 S.W.3d 27 (Tex. 2015); Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof'l Conduct 1.02(c).
Q: Did Ken Paxton knowingly help a client commit a crime?
No, the Texas Supreme Court found insufficient evidence to prove that Paxton knowingly assisted or counseled his former client in criminal or fraudulent conduct. The court determined the Commission did not meet its burden of proof.
Q: What is the standard of proof in attorney disciplinary cases in Texas?
The standard of proof in Texas attorney disciplinary cases is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the evidence must show it is more likely than not that the attorney violated the rules.
Q: What does 'assisting or counseling' mean in the context of attorney conduct rules?
It means a lawyer actively helps or advises a client to engage in illegal or fraudulent activity. Crucially, the lawyer must *know* the client's conduct is criminal or fraudulent for a violation to occur.
Q: What specific rule did the Commission for Lawyer Discipline allege Paxton violated?
The Commission alleged Paxton violated Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 1.02(c), which prohibits a lawyer from assisting or counseling a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent.
Q: Can a lawyer be disciplined for giving advice that turns out to be wrong?
Generally, no. A lawyer can only be disciplined for assisting or counseling conduct they *know* is criminal or fraudulent. Giving incorrect legal advice, without the requisite knowledge of criminal intent, is typically not grounds for professional discipline.
Q: What if a lawyer suspects their client might be doing something illegal, but isn't sure?
If a lawyer suspects but does not *know* that a client's conduct is criminal or fraudulent, they cannot assist or counsel that conduct. They should advise the client of the potential legal risks and refrain from facilitating any potentially illegal actions.
Q: What happens if a lawyer is found to have violated professional conduct rules?
If found in violation, an attorney can face disciplinary sanctions ranging from a private reprimand to suspension or disbarment, depending on the severity of the misconduct and the specific rules violated.
Practical Implications (4)
Q: How does Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline affect me?
This decision reinforces the high burden of proof required in attorney disciplinary proceedings, particularly concerning the 'knowing assistance' element. It highlights the importance of specific evidence demonstrating an attorney's actual knowledge of client misconduct, rather than mere suspicion or inference, to avoid professional sanctions. As a decision from a state supreme court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.
Q: What practical advice can lawyers take from this ruling?
Lawyers should meticulously document all advice given to clients, especially in complex or potentially risky situations. They must ensure their advice does not cross the line into assisting or counseling known criminal or fraudulent conduct.
Q: How does this ruling affect the public's trust in lawyers?
The ruling reinforces that lawyers are held to ethical standards but also that they are protected from baseless accusations. It demonstrates the court's commitment to ensuring disciplinary actions are based on sufficient evidence of wrongdoing.
Q: What should a client do if they believe their lawyer acted improperly?
A client who believes their lawyer acted improperly should consult with another attorney or contact the Commission for Lawyer Discipline to understand their options for filing a grievance or seeking redress.
Historical Context (2)
Q: Are there any historical precedents for this type of case?
Cases involving allegations of lawyers assisting clients in criminal or fraudulent conduct are not uncommon in legal ethics. The specific application of the 'knowledge' and 'assistance' elements, as seen in this Paxton case, often turns on the unique facts and evidence presented.
Q: How do attorney disciplinary rules evolve over time?
Attorney disciplinary rules are typically established by state bar associations or supreme courts and can be amended over time based on legislative changes, court decisions, and evolving professional standards and ethical considerations.
Procedural Questions (4)
Q: What was the docket number in Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline?
The docket number for Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline is 24-0452. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.
Q: Can Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline be appealed?
Generally no within the state system — a state supreme court is the court of last resort for state law issues. However, if a federal constitutional question is involved, a party may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.
Q: How did the Texas Supreme Court review the lower court's decision?
The Texas Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo, meaning they examined the legal issues and the evidence without giving deference to the lower court's conclusions of law. They reviewed the findings of fact for legal and factual sufficiency.
Q: What does 'de novo' review mean for this case?
De novo review means the Texas Supreme Court considered the legal questions presented as if they were hearing the case for the first time, without being bound by the lower court's legal interpretations or conclusions.
Cited Precedents
This opinion references the following precedent cases:
- In re Thoma, 470 S.W.3d 27 (Tex. 2015)
- Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof'l Conduct 1.02(c)
Case Details
| Case Name | Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline |
| Citation | |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
| Date Filed | 2025-02-14 |
| Docket Number | 24-0452 |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Outcome | Defendant Win |
| Disposition | reversed |
| Impact Score | 40 / 100 |
| Significance | This decision reinforces the high burden of proof required in attorney disciplinary proceedings, particularly concerning the 'knowing assistance' element. It highlights the importance of specific evidence demonstrating an attorney's actual knowledge of client misconduct, rather than mere suspicion or inference, to avoid professional sanctions. |
| Complexity | moderate |
| Legal Topics | Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.02(c), Attorney ethics and professional responsibility, Assisting in criminal or fraudulent conduct by a client, Standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings, Sufficiency of evidence in civil appeals |
| Jurisdiction | tx |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of Kenneth Warren Paxton, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English. This case received our HEAVY-tier enrichment with 5 AI analysis passes covering core analysis, deep legal structure, comprehensive FAQ, multi-audience summaries, and cross-case practical intelligence.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.02(c) or from the Texas Supreme Court:
-
Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas; Stephanie Muth, in Her Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services; And the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Jane Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor; John Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor; And Dr. Megan Mooney
Texas reporting law likely violates First Amendment for gender-affirming care providersTexas Supreme Court · 2026-04-24
-
In Re Bell Helicopter Services Inc. and Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.
Insurance policy exclusion for 'explosion' bars coverage for Bell Helicopter.Texas Supreme Court · 2026-04-24
-
In Re Warwick Construction, Inc., Bustamante Construction, and Dlc General Construction Services, Inc.
Settlement Agreement Not Enforceable Due to Indefinite TermsTexas Supreme Court · 2026-04-24
-
The Mabee Ranch Royalty Partnership, L.P.; 315 Mr, Inc.; 93 Jm, Inc.; Rock River Minerals, Lp; Primitive Petroleum, Inc.; Austen Campbell, Co-Executor of the Estate of William Scott Campbell; Janet Campbell, Co-Executor of the Estate of William Scott Campbell; Osado Properties, Ltd.; And Judith Guidera, Trustee of the Morrison Oil & Gas Trust v. Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd.; Fasken Land and Minerals, Ltd.; And Fasken Royalty Investments, Ltd.
Texas Court Affirms Royalty Calculations, Dismisses Breach of Duty ClaimsTexas Supreme Court · 2026-04-24
-
Webb Consolidated Independent School District v. Robert Marshall and Amy Marshall
School district liable for injuries during "voluntary" extracurricular activityTexas Supreme Court · 2026-04-24
-
Howmet Aerospace, Inc. F/K/A Arconic, Inc., F/K/A Alcoa, Inc. v. Frank Burford, Individually and as Representative of the Heirs and Estate of Carolyn Burford, Deceased; Wesley Burford, Individually; And Leslie Schell, Individually
Texas Supreme Court: Settlement Release Covers Estate ClaimsTexas Supreme Court · 2026-04-17
-
Ron Valk D/B/A Platinum Construction v. Copper Creek Distributors, Inc. and Jose Doniceth Escoffie
Subcontractor Fails to Prove Damages in Construction Payment DisputeTexas Supreme Court · 2026-04-17
-
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, and Sierra Club
TCEQ must apply BACT to greenhouse gas emissions for major source permits.Texas Supreme Court · 2026-04-17