Cases

JUSTICE BOYD, joined in Part I by JUSTICE LEHRMANN and JUSTICE DEVINE, dissenting. I would not answer the certified questions in this case because they are based on the premise that the Texas Optometry Act authorizes private persons to sue for civil penalties. The State, as amicus curiae, argues that the Act does not create a private right of action for civil penalties,

PER CURIAM: The Texas Supreme Court has resolved the certified questions in this case. In the light of - its answers, we now vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings. Plaintiffs, a group of optometrists who leased office space from Wal-Mart. Stores, Inc., in its retail stores," sued Wal-Mart for violations of the Texas Opto

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge: The original opinion in this case was filed on August 14, 2014. 1 In that opinion, we affirmed the district court’s judgment of liability under the Texas Optometry Act (“TOA”), Tex. Occ.Code § 351.408(c). We reversed and vacated the district court’s monetary award, however. We held that Ch

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge: This case of first impression calls upon us to interpret and apply the Texas Optometry Act. Wal-Mart rented space to optometrists using a standard lease agreement requiring optometrists to make representations in their leases of the projected number of hours their offices would remain open. A jury found Wal-Mart liable for “setting or attempting to

(2008) William E. BRADLEY, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. No. C07-5150FDB. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Tacoma. March 13, 2008. ORDER GRANTING WAL-MART STORES, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FRANKLIN D. BURGESS, District Judge. INTRODUCTION On a day when it had

39 S.W.3d 608 (1998) Harry W. STURGES, III, et al, Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., et al, Appellee. No. 09-96-315 CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont. Submitted January 29, 1998. Decided July 30, 1998. Publication Ordered March 12, 2001. *611 Morris C. Gore, Dallas, Carl Parker, Parker &

GAULTNEY, Justice, dissenting. Respectfully, I dissent. If spoliation occurred, the offense is serious. Spoliation constitutes obstruction of justice. However, there must be evidence that a breach of a duty to preserve evidence occurred before the trial court is vested with discretion on how to punish the bad conduct. See Offshore Pipelines, Inc. v. Schooley, 984 S.W.2d 654, 666 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st D

KAHN, J. Robert Burgess, the claimant in this workers’ compensation case, appeals the final order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC) denying payment of his past psychiatric treatment with an unauthorized provider. Because the JCC erroneously limited the scope of section 440.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. On June 5, 1997, Burgess requested psychiatric t

991 S.W.2d 518 (1999) WAL-MART STORES, INC., Appellant, v. Ruby ARD and J.C. Ard, Appellees. No. 09-97-361CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont. Submitted April 15, 1999. Decided June 10, 1999. Rehearing Overruled July 15, 1999. *519 J. Preston Wrotenbery, Magenheim, Bateman, Robinson, Wrotenbe

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 438 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ("Wal-Mart") appeals from a judgment in favor of James Kubiak for $95,000 for injuries and losses he suffered when a piece of exercise equipment collapsed while he was testing it at Wal-Mart's store in Bellefontaine, Ohio. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Logan County

PICKETT, Judge. A workers' compensation claimant appeals a judgment that allows her employer to require her to use a pharmacy it owns and operates for all of her prescription needs. For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment. FACTS In June 2008, Elizabeth Soileau was injured in the course and scope of her employment with Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. In September 2016, Ms. Soileau o

PICKETT, Judge. A workers' compensation claimant appeals a judgment that allows her employer to require her to use a pharmacy it owns and operates for all of her prescription needs. For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment. FACTS In June 2008, Elizabeth Soileau was injured in the course and scope of her employment with Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. In September 2016, Ms. Soileau o

BURGESS, Justice, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. The majority overturns a jury verdict because “this action in substance was an action on the contract of employment.” The majority recognizes that under Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. DeLanney, 809 S.W.2d 493 (Tex.1991) there may be an action for tort independent of the contract action. They then say: “In the case at hand, there exist no duties on t

Supreme Court of Louisiana FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #027 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 26th day of June, 2019, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2019-C-0040 ELIZABETH SOILEAU v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. In this workers' compensation matter, we are presented with the question of whether an employee's motion to compel her employer

727 S.W.2d 53 (1987) Patricia BAKER, et vir, Appellants, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Appellee. No. 09-86-145 CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont. February 19, 1987. *54 Carl Waldman, Waldman, Smallwood & Grossman, Beaumont, for appellants. Howard L. Close, Orgain, Bell & Tucker, Beaumont, for appellee.

Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas JUDGMENT Paul K. Clayton, Appellant Appeal from the 62nd District Court of Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. No. 06-20-00035-CV v. CV43911). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justi

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-20-00035-CV PAUL K. CLAYTON, Appellant V. WALMART INC. AND WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, L.P., Appellees On Appeal from the 62nd District Court Hopkins County, Texas Trial Court No. CV43911 Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG NUMBER 13-08-501-CV ALVINO CHACON, Appellant, v. ANDREWS DISTRIBUTING COMPANY LTD. AND ROBERT SANCHEZ, Appellees. NUMBER 13-08-558-CV ALVINO CHACON, Appellant,

Opinion of the Court by Justice KELLER. I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In June and July, 1995, Appellants, who were employees of a Monticello, Kentucky Wal-Mart, Inc. (‘Wal-Mart”) store, were terminated for “unauthorized removal of company property” and “violation of company policy” — specifically, for eating “claims candy,” i.e., candy from open or torn bags removed from