Supreme Court of Texas Blog

No. 13-0450
Click for Official Page


The Court requested full merits briefing on November 22, 2013. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on June 20, 2014. File Closed

In the news...

Tracking 1 article about this case.

June 20, 2014

Eight sets of opinions, one grant [Jun. 20, 2014]

from SCOTXblog

This article also mentions 10 other cases.

The Court has issued opinions:


June 20, 2014


Per Curiam Opinion PDF


Court of Appeals

Appellate District:13th Court of Appeals
Outcome Below:Aff/Pt and Rev & Ren/Pt
COA Docket No.:13-12-00169-CV
Opinion Author:Honorable Rogelio Valdez

Trial Court

Trial Court:County Court at Law No 7
Trial Judge:Honorable Arnoldo Cantu
Trial Docket:CL-05,2909-G

Entries on SCOTX Orders Lists

Docket Entries

Date Event Outcome  
2014-08-07 Case Stored  
2014-08-01 Mandate issued  
2014-06-20 Petition for Review granted under TRAP 59.1
2014-06-20 Petition for Review disposed Petition granted pursuant to TRAP 59.1
2014-06-20 Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record Issued
2014-06-20 Opinion issued   Court of Appeals' judgment reversed & judgment rendered
  This case was pending on merits briefs between January 23, 2014 and June 20, 2014.  
2014-01-23 Reply Brief (Petitioner)  
2014-01-13 Brief on the Merits (Respondent)  
2013-12-17 Case Record Filed  
2013-12-13 Brief on the Merits (Petitioner)  
2013-11-25 Record Requested in Petition for Review
2013-11-22 Brief on the Merits Requested  
2013-11-06 Address Change  
2013-10-18 Reply to Response (Petitioner)  
2013-10-07 Response to Petition (Respondent)  
2013-09-25 Motion for Extension of Time disposed.   Filing granted
2013-09-24 Response to Motion filed  
2013-09-23 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response  
2013-09-23 Phone call from Clerk's Office  
2013-08-23 Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response  
2013-07-23 Case forwarded to Court
2013-07-17 Response Waiver filed  
2013-06-18 Petition for Review (Petitioner)  


Party Counsel Role
Pena, Jesus
Mr. Fernando G. Mancias
Graham Central Station, Inc.
Mr. Joshua Kinsey Davis
Mr. Pannal Alan Sanders

Proving a defendant's ownership of premises

A fight took place outside a nightclub. An injured person sued Graham Central Station, Inc., which responded (in part) that a different legal entity (an LLC doing business under this name at this location) was the right defendant as the entity that ran this location. The plaintiff did not amend.

The court of appeals held that there was sufficient evidence on this trial record to conclude that the "Inc." was the proper defendant. The Texas Supreme Court disagreed.

What's interesting about the opinion is how the Court dealt with evidence very near the line that separates "no" from "some" evidence, including two pieces of ambiguous trial testimony. The Court ultimately invoked the "equal inference rule, under which a factfinder 'may not reasonably infer an ultimate fact from meager circumstantial evidence which could give rise to any number of inferences, none more probable than another.'" (citing Hancock v. Variyam,
400 S.W.3d 59, 70-71 (Tex. 2013)).