And we're back.

A cool front actually reached Houston this weekend, and it was a reminder to look at the calendar.

Summer vacations are over and it is time to buckle down. The Supreme Court of Texas has cinched up its tack and is saddling up for a full schedule of arguments.

The court has already set arguments through December 2012. That is early for the calendar to be so full.

Those arguments begin with two days of argument this week and one day of argument next week.  After the jump some previews and useful links for what is on the court's plate.

The court has argument in eight cases this week, four each on Wednesday and Thursday.

Wednesday's arguments are:

  • THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER AT DALLAS v. LARRY M. GENTILELLO, M.D.

A whistleblower case involving whether the Whistleblower Act protects a department chair who reported alleged violations of federal regulatory standards to his supervisor.

Briefs here.

  • BROOKSHIRE BROTHERS, LTD. v. JERRY ALDRIDGE

Because no slip and fall is complete without allegations of spoliation, this case involves (1) whether the trial court erred by admitting spoliation evidence based on the grocer's retention of a security video that showed the plaintiff's slip and fall and moments before and after but not more that might have borne on constructive notice of a grease spill, (2) whether the trial court generally erred by instructing the jury on spoliation (and specifically by placing the burden of disproving prejudice on Brookshire) and (3) whether legally sufficient evidence supported the jury's negligence finding.

Briefs here.

  • TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND CITY OF EDINBURG v. A.P.I. PIPE AND SUPPLY, L.L.C. AND PAISANO SERVICE CO., INC.

This case for the property and procedure wonks. Is an ostensible innocent purchaser is charged with knowing that a judgment conveying an easement to the city that intended to correct a clerical mistake - a judgment nunc pro tunc - invalidly declared a previous judgment null and void that gave the city fee simple title to the disputed property.

Briefs here.

  • IN THE INTEREST OF E.N.C., J.A.C., S.A.L., N.A.G. AND C.G.L.

A case involving termination of parental rights, questioning (1) whether legally sufficient evidence supported the "best interest" standard for terminating deported Mexican citizen's parental rights who continued support for his children and visited them with help from relatives and (2) whether legally sufficient evidence supported the endangerment standard when that evidence was based in part on the father's conviction for criminal activity with a minor a decade earlier.

Briefs here.

Thursday's arguments are:

  • FPL ENERGY, LLC, FPL ENERGY PECOS WIND I, L.P., FPL ENERGY PECOS WIND II, L.P. AND INDIAN MESA WIND FARM, L.P. v. TXU PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P. N/K/A LUMINANT ENERGY COMPANY, LLC

Get your green energy on. The issue in this case is whether a liquidated damages provision calculating damages based upon a regulatory penalty and involving renewable energy credits was valid or an unenforceable penalty.

Briefs here.

  • KOPPLOW DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO

An inverse condemnation/statutory condemnation case involving (1) whether legally sufficient evidence supported the jury's remainder-damages award - did the city's easement for a flood-diversion wall cause the property owner's remaining property to fall under a 100-year flood plain? (2) whether the inverse-condemnation claim is ripe; and (3) whether damages based on the city's condemnation for a storm water-control facility on adjoining property were barred by the Campbell rule (266 U.S. at 372).

Briefs here.

  • BYRON D. NEELY, INDIVIDUALLY AND BYRON D. NEELY, M.D., P.A. v. NANCI WILSON, CBS STATIONS GROUP OF TEXAS, L.P., D/B/A KEYE-TV AND VIACOM, INC.

A libel case based on a television report of a Texas Medical Board's order disciplining a physician involving whether Texas recognizes the third party-allegation rule that would shield a publisher from liability for defamation if its report about the order is substantially true.

Briefs here.

  • AARON FELTON v. BROCK LOVETT, D.C.

And because one can never have too many expert medical testimony cases, this case involves whether a chiropractor's expert testimony was improper to establish duty to inform.

Briefs here.

As always, one can watch the arguments online, and this would be a good week to do so. The court will have some able talent before it, and I am particularly interested in the whistleblower argument, the libel/free speech case as well as the liquidated damages issue.

Stay tuned for a preview of next week's arguments.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.