Supreme Court of Texas Blog

No. 13-0816
Click for Official Page

EL PASO MARKETING, L.P. v. WOLF HOLLOW I, L.P.

The Court requested full merits briefing on March 21, 2014. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on November 21, 2014. File Closed

Opinion

November 21, 2014

Percuriam.246722

Per Curiam Opinion PDF

 

Court of Appeals

Appellate District:14th Court of Appeals
Outcome Below:Aff/Pt and Rev & Rem/Pt
COA Docket No.:14-09-00118-CV
Opinion Author:Honorable Tracy K. Christopher

Trial Court

Trial Court:165th District Court
County:Harris
Trial Judge:Honorable Elizabeth Ray
Trial Docket:2006-70615

Entries on SCOTX Orders Lists

Docket Entries

Date Event Outcome  
2015-01-23 Case Stored  
2015-01-16 Mandate issued  
  This case was waiting for a possible rehearing motion between November 21, 2014 and January 16, 2015.  
2014-11-21 Petition for Review disposed Petition granted pursuant to TRAP 59.1
2014-11-21 Petition for Review granted under TRAP 59.1
2014-11-21 Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record Issued
2014-11-21 Opinion issued   Court of Appeals' judgment reversed and remanded to Court of Appeals
2014-10-31 Address Change  
  This case was pending on merits briefs between June 6, 2014 and October 31, 2014.  
2014-06-06 Reply Brief (Petitioner)  
2014-05-22 Brief on the Merits (Respondent)  
2014-05-02 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed  
2014-05-02 Motion for Extension of Time disposed.   Filing granted
2014-04-21 Brief on the Merits (Petitioner)  
2014-03-25 Record Requested in Petition for Review  
2014-03-25 Case Record Filed  
2014-03-21 Brief on the Merits Requested  
2014-02-25 Reply to Response (Petitioner)  
2014-02-11 Call received  
2014-02-10 Response to Petition (Respondent)  
2014-01-10 Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response  
2013-12-10 Case forwarded to Court
2013-12-05 Response Waiver filed  
2013-11-15 Petition for Review (Petitioner)  
2013-10-10 Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review disposed   Filing granted
2013-10-09 Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review filed  

Parties

Party Counsel Role
Wolf Hollow I, L.P.
Mr. Jacks C. Nickens
Respondent
El Paso Marking, L.P.
Mr. D. Mitchell McFarland
Ms. Caroline C. Schadle
Petitioner
Enterprise Texas Pipeline LLC
Mr. Michael Hendryx
Ms. Suzanne Reddell Chauvin
Mr. Chad Michael Gerke
Other Interested Party
 

Clarifying the scope of a prior opinion

The Court resolved some confusion about the scope of its previous ruling in [texapptext docket_no="11–0059"], in which it had remanded certain claims involving a natural-gas contract.

The parties disputed, among other things, the quality of the gas provided and the quantity of gas provided. The Supreme Court's prior opinion included some language that "there is evidence Wolf Hollow is entitled to recover replacement-power damages..." The court of appeals read that language as addressing both the quantity and quality claims, even though its analysis had not dealt specifically with the gas-quality claims. The court of appeals, therefore, did not address the substance of those claims.

In this appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, explaining that the broad language in its prior decision was not meant to foreclose these other arguments, which had not been expressly addressed. The Court included a detailed footnote trying to explain the exact parameters of what claims were (now) final and which remained to be determined.

The main holding of this case is a caution that broad language in a Supreme Court opinion is not, necessarily, meant to be law of the case foreclosing consideration of other issues on remand. But before you try to extract a rule that "only express holdings are holdings," read footnote 1. There, as part of explaining why one of the court of appeals opinions was mistaken, the Court invokes context outside the scope of the opinion: "In Wolf Hollow II, El Paso moved for rehearing, arguing that '[t]he Court incorrectly construes El Paso’s obligation under Section 14.1 of the Supply Agreement as to gas quality,' but we denied the motion." In a complex case, the text of an opinion may not be enough to fully guide the lower courts on remand.

...
...