No. 12-0987
Click for Official Page
Oral argument was held on December 10, 2014. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on May 8, 2015. File Closed
Tracking 1 article about this case.
October 5, 2014
from SCOTXblog
This article also mentions 7 other cases.
| Appellate District: | 1st Court of Appeals |
| Outcome Below: | Reverse & Remand |
| COA Docket No.: | 01-10-00719-CV |
| Opinion Author: | Honorable Evelyn Keyes |
| Trial Court: | 55th District Court |
| County: | Harris |
| Trial Judge: | Honorable Dion C. Ramos |
| Trial Docket: | 2004-67993 |
| Date | Event | Outcome | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2015-07-16 | Case Stored | ||
| 2015-06-18 | Mandate issued | ||
| 2015-05-08 | Opinion issued | Court of Appeals' judgment reversed, trial court judgment reinstated | |
| 2015-05-08 | Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record | Issued | |
| This case was awaiting the Court's decision after oral argument between December 10, 2014 and May 8, 2015. | |||
| 2014-12-10 | Oral argument | ||
| 2014-11-03 | Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received | ||
| 2014-10-24 | Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received | ||
| 2014-10-03 | Petition for Review disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2014-10-03 | Petition for Review granted | ||
| 2014-10-03 | Case set for oral argument | Case set for oral argument | |
| This case was pending on merits briefs between January 24, 2014 and October 3, 2014. | |||
| 2014-01-24 | Reply Brief (Petitioner) | ||
| 2013-12-27 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. | Filing granted | |
| 2013-12-17 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed | ||
| 2013-12-12 | Brief on the Merits (Respondent) | ||
| 2013-11-08 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed | ||
| 2013-11-08 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. | Filing granted | |
| 2013-10-23 | Brief on the Merits (Petitioner) | ||
| 2013-09-25 | Case Record Filed | ||
| 2013-09-18 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed | ||
| 2013-09-18 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. | Filing granted | |
| 2013-08-27 | Record Requested in Petition for Review | ||
| 2013-08-23 | Brief on the Merits Requested | ||
| 2013-07-29 | Reply to Response (Petitioner) | ||
| 2013-07-24 | MET to file reply disposed of | Filing granted | |
| 2013-07-23 | Motion to Extend Time to File Reply filed | ||
| 2013-07-09 | Response to Petition (Respondent) | ||
| 2013-06-24 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Response disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2013-06-24 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Response | ||
| 2013-05-31 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Response disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2013-05-31 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Response | ||
| 2013-05-03 | Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response | ||
| 2013-04-02 | Case forwarded to Court | ||
| 2013-03-26 | Response Waiver filed | ||
| 2013-03-15 | Petition for Review (Petitioner) | ||
| 2013-02-11 | Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2013-02-08 | Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review filed | ||
| This case was waiting for the parties to file a formal petition between December 13, 2012 and February 8, 2013. | |||
| 2012-12-13 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2012-12-10 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review filed |
| Party | Counsel | Role | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gharda USA, Inc. |
|
Petitioner | ||||||
| Control Solutions, Inc. |
|
Respondent | ||||||
| Gharda Chemicals, Ltd. |
|
Petitioner |
This petition challenges a jury verdict that certain chemicals caused a fire within a facility storing many other chemicals, on the basis that (1) the expert's opinions were not supported by a sufficient foundation and (2) the evidence was legally insufficient.
Among the issues identified in the petition:
that it "credits expert testimony that damages are 'consistent with' a particular
causation theory rather than requiring probative evidence of causation"
that it includes "proof of causation by process of elimination"
that they expert testimony was admitted without "requiring each part of the causation theory to be supported by testing or other scientifically reliable evidence"
that it "[d]isregards undisputed test results conducted by a defendant’s experts that
disprove a plaintiff’s theory"
