Supreme Court of Texas Blog

No. 12-0987
Click for Official Page

GHARDA USA, INC. AND GHARDA CHEMICALS, LTD. v. CONTROL SOLUTIONS, INC., UNITED PHOSPHORUS, INC., AND MARK BOYD

Oral argument was held on December 10, 2014. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on May 8, 2015. File Closed

In the news...

Tracking 1 article about this case.

October 5, 2014

One new opinion, one revised opinion, and six grants [Oct. 3, 2014]

from SCOTXblog

This article also mentions 7 other cases.

The Court has issued opinions:

Opinion

May 8, 2015

Green
Hecht
Johnson
Willett
Guzman
Lehrmann
Boyd
Devine
Brown

Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court.View Electronic Briefs | Oral Argument | Video PDF

 

Court of Appeals

Appellate District:1st Court of Appeals
Outcome Below:Reverse & Remand
COA Docket No.:01-10-00719-CV
Opinion Author:Honorable Evelyn Keyes

Trial Court

Trial Court:55th District Court
County:Harris
Trial Judge:Honorable Dion C. Ramos
Trial Docket:2004-67993

Entries on SCOTX Orders Lists

Docket Entries

Date Event Outcome  
2015-07-16 Case Stored  
2015-06-18 Mandate issued  
2015-05-08 Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record Issued
2015-05-08 Opinion issued   Court of Appeals' judgment reversed, trial court judgment reinstated
  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 Case set for oral argument   Case set for oral argument
2014-10-03 Petition for Review granted
  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  
2013-06-24 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response disposed   Filing granted
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  

Parties

Party Counsel Role
Gharda USA, Inc.
Mr. James T. Liston
Mr. Francis I. Spagnoletti
Mr. Kevin H. Dubose
Mr. Robert B. Dubose
Mr. John P. Abbey
Mr. David Stephen Toy
Petitioner
Control Solutions, Inc.
Ms. Karen Klaas Milhollin
Mr. George Howard Lugrin
Mr. Neil E. Giles
Mr. Jeffrey E. Fahys
Respondent
Gharda Chemicals, Ltd.
Mr. Charles W. Lyman
Mr. Kevin H. Dubose
Mr. John B. Wallace
Mr. Robert B. Dubose
Mr. Jeffrey S. Patterson
Petitioner
 

Expert testimony about causation

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"

...
...