Contact: Osler McCarthy, staff attorney for public information. 512.463.1441 or click for email
… Whether sentimental or intrinsic value can be recovered for a dog’s death
… Whether on remand the trial court properly followed the Court’s instructions
The Court will begin arguments at 9 a.m. in the Supreme Court Courtroom in Austin. Link for live video webcasts courtesy of TexasBarCLE.com.
12-0047
Carla Strickland v. Kathryn and Jeremy Medlen
from Tarrant County and the Second District Court of Appeals, Fort Worth
For petitioner: John H. Cayce Jr., Fort Worth
For respondents: Randall E. Turner, Bedford
The issue in this negligence case seeking sentimental-value damages for a pet dog mistakenly euthanized is whether intrinsic or sentimental value can be recovered. The Medlens sued Strictland for negligently putting their dog on a list of animals to be euthanized at a shelter despite a “hold for owner” tag on its cage. The dog was killed. Strictland specially excepted to the Medlins’ claim for sentimental or intrinsic-value damages. After the Medlens repleaded just for intrinsic-value damages, the trial court dismissed the suit for failing to state a claim for damages. The appeals court reversed, holding that intrinsic or sentimental value could be recovered for a dog’s loss.
Briefs
Court of appeals opinion
12-0198
Phillips Petroleum Co., et al. v. Royce Yarbrough
consolidated for oral argument with
12-0199
In re ConocoPhillips Co., et al.
from Fort Bend County and the 14th District Court of Appeals, Houston
For petitioners/relators: Michael V. Powell, Dallas
For respondent/real party in interest: Rand P. Nolen, Houston, and Joe L. Lovell, Amarillo
In these related actions involving a royalty-owners class suing for underpayment the issues are (1) whether interlocutory review or relief by mandamus or prohibition are proper to force the trial court to reconsider class certification by res judicata issues the Court arguably ordered be reconsidered on remand in the previous appeal, Bowden v. Phillips Petroleum Co.; (2) whether the Supreme Court has interlocutory jurisdiction to review the trial court’s addition of implied-covenant-to-market claims on remand by the certified class; and (3) whether the implied-covenant-to-market claims should be struck as matter of law. As to the first issue, Phillips and ConocoPhillips argue that Bowden required reconsideration of the class certification based on the res judicata issues. Yarbrough counters that Bowden confirmed class certification of the subclass in this appeal and ordered res judicata considered only if the trial court certified a new class.
Briefs in 12-0198
Briefs in 12-0199
Court of appeals opinion in Yarbrough
Court of appeals opinion in ConocoPhillips
NOTE: This advisory is for planning purposes only. 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.
