The Texas Supreme Court issued three opinions with today’s regular Friday orders.
In In re Roberts (No. 05‑0362) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam), the Court concluded that allowing plaintiffs a 30-day grace period to amend expert reports in a health-care liability case "does not substantially prolong litigation or allow for extensive discovery" and therefore does not cause the kind of delay for which mandamus is available under its recent decision in In re McAllen Medical Center. The Court somewhat snidely observed that this original proceeding had delayed the case for four years, in contrast to the the mere 30-day delay the extension would have caused.
In In re Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, Ltd. (No. 05-0575) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam), a health-care liability case involving the trial court’s refusal to dismiss based on allegedly defective expert reports, the Court conditionally granted mandamus relief and instructed the court of appeals to consider whether an adequate appellate remedy exists in light of In re McAllen Medical Center.
In FKM Partnership, Ltd. v. Board of Regents of the University of Houston System (05‑0661), the Court held that the trial court retained jurisdiction over a condemnation action after the condemning authority amended its petition to reduce the amount of property to be taken by more than 97 percent. The Court further held that the condemning authority was liable to the landowner for certain fees and expenses because the reduction in property condemned effectively dismissed the original proceeding. Justice Willett issued an opinion concurring and dissenting in part.