Supreme Court of Texas Blog

No. 15-0037
Click for Official Page


The Court requested full merits briefing on June 12, 2015. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on September 18, 2015. File Closed

In the news...

Tracking 1 article about this case.

The Court has issued opinions:


September 18, 2015


Per Curiam OpinionView Electronic Briefs | Oral Argument N/A | Video N/A PDF


Court of Appeals

Appellate District:12th Court of Appeals
Outcome Below:Reverse & Dismiss
COA Docket No.:12-13-00344-CV
Opinion Author:Honorable Sam Griffith

Trial Court

Trial Court:159th District Court
Trial Judge:Honorable Paul E. White
Trial Docket:CV-01271-12-3

Entries on SCOTX Orders Lists

Docket Entries

Date Event Outcome  
2015-10-30 Mandate issued  
2015-09-18 Petition for Review disposed Petition granted pursuant to TRAP 59.1
2015-09-18 Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record Issued
2015-09-18 Petition for Review granted under TRAP 59.1
2015-09-18 Opinion issued   Court of Appeals' judgment reversed; cause remanded to trial court
2015-08-17 Reply Brief (Petitioner)  
2015-07-30 Brief on the Merits (Respondent)  
2015-07-10 Brief on the Merits (Petitioner)  
2015-06-19 Case Record Filed  
2015-06-17 Record Requested in Petition for Review  
2015-06-12 Brief on the Merits Requested  
  This case was waiting for a decision about briefing or a possible grant between April 8, 2015 and June 12, 2015.  
2015-04-08 Fully hyperlinked brief filed (Respondent)  
2015-04-06 Response to Petition (Respondent)  
2015-03-30 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response disposed   Filing granted
2015-03-27 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response  
2015-03-27 Electronic communication sent to Party  
2015-02-27 Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response  
2015-01-27 Case forwarded to Court
2015-01-23 Response Waiver filed  
2015-01-15 Petition for Review (Petitioner)  


Party Counsel Role
Lawson, Louie
Sammy Johnson II
City of Diboll, Texas
Mr. Robert T. Cain Jr.
Ms. Erika L. Neill

Spectators at a sporting event are not engaging in a "recreational use" of the property

premises liability

The Supreme Court found the facts in this case indistinguishable from those in its recent decision in UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON v. SANDRA WILLIAMS AND STEVE WILLIAMS, No. 13-0338.

What makes this per curiam interesting is how the Court dealt with Williams being a plurality decision. Because only four Justices joined the "opinion of the court" in that case, its statements do not form a truly binding holding of the Court. So, to assemble a holding, the Court adds up the justices who agreed with the judgment, looking for a majority who shared a common holding.

Although not embracing the plurality’s analysis, Justice Boyd concurred with the opinion’s salient holding. Id. at 62 (Boyd, J., concurring). Thus, a majority of the Court agreed that under facts similar to those in this case, the recreational use statute does not apply.