What specific evidence did the plaintiff present, and why was it deemed insufficient by the court?

The plaintiff likely presented witness testimony and potentially video evidence. However, the court found this evidence did not create a genuine dispute of material fact, meaning it did not sufficiently show that the guards' actions were objectively unreasonable or that they caused the death.

What is the 'objective reasonableness' standard in the context of security guard force?

This standard, derived from Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, assesses whether the force used by a law enforcement officer (or, in this context, a security guard acting under similar duties) was objectively reasonable given the facts and circumstances confronting the officer at the moment the force was applied, without regard to the officer's underlying intent or motivation.

What is the significance of a summary judgment ruling in a case like this?

A summary judgment ruling means the case is decided without a full trial because the court found no genuine dispute of material fact. For the defendants, it means they won the case at the trial court level, and for the plaintiff, it means their case was dismissed before reaching a jury.

Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida

Headline: Court Affirms Summary Judgment for Home Depot in Excessive Force Case

Citation:

Court: Texas Supreme Court · Filed: 2025-05-09 · Docket: 23-0704

Published

This decision reinforces the high bar plaintiffs must clear to survive summary judgment in excessive force cases against private security. It highlights the importance of presenting concrete evidence demonstrating the objective unreasonableness of the force used, rather than relying on speculative claims or general allegations of harm. moderate affirmed

Outcome: Defendant Win

Impact Score: 25/100 — Low-moderate impact: This case addresses specific legal issues with limited broader application.

Legal Topics: Wrongful death claims Excessive force by security guards Summary judgment standards Reasonableness of force Texas premises liability

Legal Principles: Summary judgment standard (Rule 56)Objective reasonableness standard for use of forceBurden of proof in civil litigation

Brief at a Glance

Texas court upholds dismissal of wrongful death suit against Home Depot, finding insufficient evidence of excessive force by security guards.

Document any physical contact or restraint by security personnel immediately.
Identify and obtain contact information for any witnesses to the incident.
Seek legal counsel if you believe excessive force was used against you.

Case Summary

Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida, decided by Texas Supreme Court on May 9, 2025, resulted in a defendant win outcome. This case concerns a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the estate of Rogelio Santander Jr. against Home Depot and its security contractor, Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc., alleging excessive force by security guards. The estate claimed the guards' actions led to Santander's death. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the evidence presented did not establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the reasonableness of the force used, thus granting summary judgment to the defendants. The court held: The court held that the evidence presented by the plaintiff did not create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the reasonableness of the force used by the security guards, as required to overcome a motion for summary judgment.. The court found that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the security guards' actions were objectively unreasonable under the circumstances, a necessary element for a claim of excessive force.. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Home Depot and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc., concluding that no reasonable jury could find in favor of the plaintiff based on the evidence provided.. This decision reinforces the high bar plaintiffs must clear to survive summary judgment in excessive force cases against private security. It highlights the importance of presenting concrete evidence demonstrating the objective unreasonableness of the force used, rather than relying on speculative claims or general allegations of harm.

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)

A family sued Home Depot and its security company after their loved one died during an incident with security guards. They claimed the guards used too much force. The court agreed with Home Depot and the security company, stating that the family didn't provide enough evidence to show the guards' actions were unreasonable. Therefore, the case was dismissed without a trial.

For Legal Practitioners

The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for Home Depot and its security contractor in a wrongful death suit alleging excessive force. The court held that the plaintiff estate failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the reasonableness of the force used by the security guards, applying the de novo standard of review and focusing on the evidence presented (or lack thereof) concerning the guards' reasonable belief of immediate necessity.

For Law Students

This case illustrates the application of the summary judgment standard in Texas wrongful death cases involving alleged excessive force. The court's de novo review focused on whether the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to create a fact issue on the reasonableness of the force used, emphasizing the defendant's burden to show no genuine issue of material fact exists.

Newsroom Summary

A Texas appeals court has sided with Home Depot and its security firm in a wrongful death lawsuit. The family of Rogelio Santander Jr. claimed security guards used excessive force, leading to his death. The court found insufficient evidence to proceed to trial, upholding the lower court's dismissal.

Key Holdings

The court established the following key holdings in this case:

The court held that the evidence presented by the plaintiff did not create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the reasonableness of the force used by the security guards, as required to overcome a motion for summary judgment.
The court found that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the security guards' actions were objectively unreasonable under the circumstances, a necessary element for a claim of excessive force.
The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Home Depot and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc., concluding that no reasonable jury could find in favor of the plaintiff based on the evidence provided.

Key Takeaways

Document any physical contact or restraint by security personnel immediately.
Identify and obtain contact information for any witnesses to the incident.
Seek legal counsel if you believe excessive force was used against you.
Understand that in Texas, security can use force if reasonably believed necessary to prevent theft or protect themselves/others.
Be aware that lawsuits alleging excessive force require specific evidence of unreasonableness to survive summary judgment.

Deep Legal Analysis

Standard of Review

De novo review. The appellate court reviews a summary judgment ruling to determine if the movant (Home Depot and Point 2 Point) established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant (Santander's estate).

Procedural Posture

The case reached the appellate court after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Home Depot and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc., dismissing the wrongful death claims brought by the estate of Rogelio Santander Jr.

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof was on the defendants (Home Depot and Point 2 Point) to show that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The estate, as the non-movant, only needed to present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact.

Legal Tests Applied

Reasonableness of Force in Texas

Elements: Whether the actor reasonably believed that the force used was immediately necessary to protect themselves or another against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. · Whether the actor reasonably believed that the force used was immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission of a felony.

The court found that the estate failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding the reasonableness of the force used by the security guards. Specifically, the court noted that the estate did not provide evidence that the guards did not reasonably believe the force was necessary to protect themselves or others, or to prevent the commission of a felony (theft).

Statutory References

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 71.001 et seq.	Wrongful Death Act — This statute provides the basis for the estate's lawsuit, allowing for recovery of damages for the death of a person caused by the wrongful act, omission, or negligence of another.
Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a	Summary Judgment Rule — This rule governs the procedure for summary judgment, which was the procedural mechanism by which the defendants sought to have the case dismissed before trial.

Key Legal Definitions

Summary Judgment: A procedural device used in civil litigation to resolve a case without a full trial when there is no genuine dispute over the material facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Genuine Issue of Material Fact: A fact that is essential to the outcome of the lawsuit and about which there is conflicting evidence, meaning a jury could reasonably find for either party.

Reasonable Belief: In the context of self-defense or defense of others, it refers to a belief that is objectively justifiable under the circumstances, even if it turns out to be mistaken.

Excessive Force: The use of force by law enforcement or security personnel that is more than is reasonably necessary to effectuate a lawful purpose.

Rule Statements

"To defeat a summary judgment based on a claim of self-defense or defense of others, the non-movant must produce evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact regarding the reasonableness of the actor’s belief that the force used was immediately necessary."

"The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, must be sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact on each element of the claim."

"A defendant moving for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff cannot establish an element of the claim must present summary judgment evidence that the plaintiff cannot establish that element."

Entities and Participants

Key Takeaways

Document any physical contact or restraint by security personnel immediately.
Identify and obtain contact information for any witnesses to the incident.
Seek legal counsel if you believe excessive force was used against you.
Understand that in Texas, security can use force if reasonably believed necessary to prevent theft or protect themselves/others.
Be aware that lawsuits alleging excessive force require specific evidence of unreasonableness to survive summary judgment.

Know Your Rights

Real-world scenarios derived from this court's ruling:

Scenario: You are accused of shoplifting at a large retail store, and store security detains you, using force that you believe is excessive.

Your Rights: You have the right to be detained reasonably, and security cannot use force that is not immediately necessary to protect themselves or others, or to prevent a felony.

What To Do: If you believe excessive force was used, document your injuries and any witness information immediately. Consult with an attorney specializing in civil rights or personal injury law to understand your options for pursuing a claim.

Is It Legal?

Common legal questions answered by this ruling:

Is it legal for store security to use force if they suspect me of shoplifting?

Yes, store security can use force if they reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to protect themselves or others, or to prevent the commission of a felony (like theft). However, the force used must be reasonable under the circumstances.

This applies in Texas, based on the principles discussed in this case.

Practical Implications

For Families of individuals who die during encounters with security personnel.

This ruling reinforces that for a wrongful death claim based on excessive force to proceed, the estate must present specific evidence demonstrating that the force used was unreasonable and not immediately necessary, rather than relying on speculation or general allegations.

For Retail businesses and their security contractors.

The decision provides clarity that if a plaintiff cannot produce evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact about the reasonableness of force, summary judgment can be granted, protecting businesses from potentially meritless lawsuits proceeding to trial.

Related Legal Concepts

Texas Tort Claims Act
A statute that waives sovereign immunity for certain tort claims against governm... Premises Liability
A property owner's legal responsibility to ensure their property is reasonably s... De Novo Review
An appellate court's review of a lower court's decision without giving deference...

Frequently Asked Questions (36)

Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.

Basic Questions (7)

Q: What is Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida about?

Q: What court decided Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida?

Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida 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 Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida decided?

Q: Who were the judges in Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida?

The judges in Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida: Busby, Lehrmann.

Q: What is the citation for Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida?

The citation for Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What was the main issue in the case of Seward v. Santander?

The main issue was whether the security guards employed by Home Depot and its contractor used excessive force, leading to the death of Rogelio Santander Jr., and if there was enough evidence to proceed to a trial.

Q: Who sued whom in this case?

The estate of Rogelio Santander Jr. sued Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and its security contractor, Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc.

Legal Analysis (15)

Q: Is Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida published?

Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida. Key holdings: The court held that the evidence presented by the plaintiff did not create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the reasonableness of the force used by the security guards, as required to overcome a motion for summary judgment.; The court found that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the security guards' actions were objectively unreasonable under the circumstances, a necessary element for a claim of excessive force.; The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Home Depot and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc., concluding that no reasonable jury could find in favor of the plaintiff based on the evidence provided..

Q: Why is Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida important?

Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida has an impact score of 25/100, indicating limited broader impact. This decision reinforces the high bar plaintiffs must clear to survive summary judgment in excessive force cases against private security. It highlights the importance of presenting concrete evidence demonstrating the objective unreasonableness of the force used, rather than relying on speculative claims or general allegations of harm.

Q: What precedent does Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida set?

Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that the evidence presented by the plaintiff did not create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the reasonableness of the force used by the security guards, as required to overcome a motion for summary judgment. (2) The court found that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the security guards' actions were objectively unreasonable under the circumstances, a necessary element for a claim of excessive force. (3) The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Home Depot and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc., concluding that no reasonable jury could find in favor of the plaintiff based on the evidence provided.

Q: What are the key holdings in Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida?

1. The court held that the evidence presented by the plaintiff did not create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the reasonableness of the force used by the security guards, as required to overcome a motion for summary judgment. 2. The court found that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the security guards' actions were objectively unreasonable under the circumstances, a necessary element for a claim of excessive force. 3. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Home Depot and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc., concluding that no reasonable jury could find in favor of the plaintiff based on the evidence provided.

Q: What is summary judgment?

Summary judgment is a court order that resolves a lawsuit without a trial when there are no significant factual disputes and one party is legally entitled to win.

Q: What legal test did the court apply regarding the security guards' actions?

The court applied the legal test for the reasonableness of force in Texas, which considers whether the guards reasonably believed the force used was immediately necessary to protect themselves or others, or to prevent a felony.

Q: Did the estate present enough evidence to prove excessive force?

No, the court found that the estate did not present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the reasonableness of the force used by the security guards.

Q: What does 'genuine issue of material fact' mean in this context?

It means there wasn't enough conflicting evidence about important facts (like whether the guards' belief that force was necessary was reasonable) for a jury to decide.

Q: What is the burden of proof for the defendants in a summary judgment motion?

The defendants (Home Depot and Point 2 Point) had the burden to prove there was no genuine issue of material fact and they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Q: What happens if a plaintiff fails to provide evidence for a key element of their claim?

If the plaintiff fails to provide evidence for a key element, like the unreasonableness of the force used, the defendant may be granted summary judgment, as happened in this case.

Q: What is the relevance of the Texas Wrongful Death Act in this case?

The Texas Wrongful Death Act provided the legal basis for the estate to file a lawsuit seeking damages for the death of Rogelio Santander Jr. caused by alleged wrongful acts.

Q: What is the significance of the 'de novo' standard of review?

It means the appellate court reviewed the case from scratch, without giving any special weight to the trial court's legal conclusions, ensuring a fresh legal analysis.

Q: Are there any specific Texas statutes mentioned that are important?

Yes, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 71.001 et seq. (Wrongful Death Act) and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a (Summary Judgment Rule) are relevant.

Q: What does 'reasonable belief' mean for security guards?

It means the guards must have had an objectively justifiable reason to believe the force they used was necessary under the circumstances, not just a subjective feeling.

Practical Implications (5)

Q: How does Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida affect me?

Q: Can store security detain someone they suspect of shoplifting?

Yes, store security can detain someone if they have reasonable grounds to believe the person has committed theft, but the detention and any force used must be reasonable.

Q: What should I do if I believe store security used excessive force on me?

You should document your injuries, gather witness information, and consult with an attorney specializing in civil rights or personal injury law as soon as possible.

Q: Does this ruling mean store security can use any amount of force?

No, the force used by security must be reasonably believed to be immediately necessary. If the force is excessive or not necessary, the security personnel and the store could still be liable.

Q: What is the role of evidence in a summary judgment motion?

Evidence is crucial. The moving party must present evidence showing no factual dispute, and the non-moving party must present evidence showing a dispute exists on material facts.

Historical Context (2)

Q: What is the historical context of excessive force claims?

Claims of excessive force by security or law enforcement have a long history, often involving constitutional rights and state tort laws designed to protect individuals from undue harm.

Q: How do these types of cases typically proceed?

These cases often start with a lawsuit, followed by discovery, and can be resolved through settlement, summary judgment, or a full trial if factual disputes remain.

Procedural Questions (4)

Q: What was the docket number in Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida?

The docket number for Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida is 23-0704. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida 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: What was the outcome of the case at the trial court level?

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Home Depot and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc., dismissing the lawsuit.

Q: What standard of review did the appellate court use?

The appellate court reviewed the trial court's decision de novo, meaning they examined the case without deference to the lower court's ruling.

Case Details

Case Name	Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida
Citation
Court	Texas Supreme Court
Date Filed	2025-05-09
Docket Number	23-0704
Precedential Status	Published
Outcome	Defendant Win
Disposition	affirmed
Impact Score	25 / 100
Significance	This decision reinforces the high bar plaintiffs must clear to survive summary judgment in excessive force cases against private security. It highlights the importance of presenting concrete evidence demonstrating the objective unreasonableness of the force used, rather than relying on speculative claims or general allegations of harm.
Complexity	moderate
Legal Topics	Wrongful death claims, Excessive force by security guards, Summary judgment standards, Reasonableness of force, Texas premises liability
Jurisdiction	tx

Related Legal Resources

Texas Supreme Court Opinions Wrongful death claims Excessive force by security guards Summary judgment standards Reasonableness of force Texas premises liability tx Jurisdiction Home Search Cases Is It Legal? 2025 Cases All Courts All Topics States Rankings Wrongful death claims Guide Excessive force by security guards Guide Summary judgment standard (Rule 56) (Legal Term)Objective reasonableness standard for use of force (Legal Term)Burden of proof in civil litigation (Legal Term) Wrongful death claims Topic Hub Excessive force by security guards Topic Hub Summary judgment standards Topic Hub

About This Analysis

This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida 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 Wrongful death claims 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 providers

Texas 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 Terms

Texas 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 Claims

Texas Supreme Court · 2026-04-24
Webb Consolidated Independent School District v. Robert Marshall and Amy Marshall
School district liable for injuries during "voluntary" extracurricular activity

Texas 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 Claims

Texas 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 Dispute

Texas 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