Texas Disposal Systems, Inc. v. Perez

80 S.W.3d 593, 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 966, 2002 Tex. LEXIS 99, 2002 WL 1379035
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJune 27, 2002
DocketNo. 01-0835
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 80 S.W.3d 593 (Texas Disposal Systems, Inc. v. Perez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Texas Disposal Systems, Inc. v. Perez, 80 S.W.3d 593, 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 966, 2002 Tex. LEXIS 99, 2002 WL 1379035 (Tex. 2002).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Texas Disposal Systems, Inc. (TDS) sued its former employees, Albert Perez, Jose Maldonado, and Raul Gutierrez, for violating covenants not to compete contained in their employment contracts. [594]*594TDS sought injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, and costs. The trial court enjoined the former employees from participating in certain activities, reformed the covenants to limit their effective time period to one year, and awarded TDS attorney’s fees and costs. The court of appeals reversed the attorney’s fee award, concluding that TDS was not entitled to attorney’s fees under Texas Business and Commerce Code section 15.51(c) (the Covenant Not to Compete Act). 58 S.W.3d 480, 483. The court of appeals acknowledged that TDS also sought attorney’s fees under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 38.001(8). 53 S.W.3d at 481. Nevertheless, the court did not consider whether TDS was entitled to attorney’s fees under this provision.

The court of appeals is obligated to hand down a written opinion that “addresses every issue raised and necessary to final disposition of the appeal.” Tex.R.App. P. 47.1; see Office of Pub. Util. Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 878 S.W.2d 598, 599-600 (Tex.1994). Because the court of appeals did not consider the alternative basis that TDS asserted to support the attorney’s fees award, we remand the case to the court of appeals to consider this point. Accordingly, without hearing oral argument, Tex.R.App. P. 59.1, we grant TDS’s petition for review, reverse the court of appeals’ judgment, and remand the case to the court of appeals for further consideration in accordance with this opinion.

Justice RODRIGUEZ did not participate in the decision.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

City of Justin v. Town of Northlake
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2018
Sloan v. Law Office of Oscar C. Gonzalez, Inc.
479 S.W.3d 833 (Texas Supreme Court, 2016)
Alliantgroup, L.P. v. Feingold
803 F. Supp. 2d 610 (S.D. Texas, 2011)
Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. v. Cammarata
688 F. Supp. 2d 598 (S.D. Texas, 2010)
Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding
289 S.W.3d 844 (Texas Supreme Court, 2009)
In Re SN
272 S.W.3d 45 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
in the Interest of S.N., a Child
272 S.W.3d 45 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
West v. Robinson
180 S.W.3d 575 (Texas Supreme Court, 2005)
REPUBLIC UNDERWRITERS INS. v. Mex-Tex, Inc.
106 S.W.3d 174 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
Republic Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Mex-Tex, Inc.
106 S.W.3d 171 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
Republic Insurance Company v. Mex-Tex, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003
Perez v. Texas Disposal Systems, Inc.
103 S.W.3d 591 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
80 S.W.3d 593, 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 966, 2002 Tex. LEXIS 99, 2002 WL 1379035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/texas-disposal-systems-inc-v-perez-tex-2002.