Opinion
No. 05-14-00649-CV
06-03-2020
B.C., Appellant v. STEAK N SHAKE OPERATIONS, INC., Appellee
On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 380-02686-2012
ORDER
Before Justices Reichek, Nowell, and Evans
The Honorable Justice Amanda Reichek succeeded the Honorable Molly Francis, a member of the original panel. Justice Reichek has reviewed the briefs and the record before the Court.
The Honorable Justice Erin Nowell succeeded the Honorable Craig Stoddart, a member of the original panel. Justice Nowell has reviewed the briefs and the record before the Court.
This case has been remanded by the Texas Supreme Court and reinstated on this Court's docket. B.C. v. Steak N Shake Operations, Inc., No. 17-1008 (Tex. March 27, 2020). We ORDER that appellant may, but is not required to, file an amended or supplemental brief so that any argument regarding every remaining issue is "properly presented," with appropriate citations to "law and authorities" and to the clerk's record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i); id. 38.9; St. John's Miss. Bap. Church v. Flakes, No. 18-0513, 2020 WL 593694 (Tex. Feb. 7, 2020); Horton v. Stovall, 591 S.W.3d 567 (Tex. 2019); see Adams v. Starside Custom Builders, LLC, 547 S.W.3d 890, 896-97 (Tex. 2018). We further ORDER that if appellant chooses to file an amended or supplemental brief, appellant must do so within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. We further ORDER that, in the event appellant files an amended or supplemental brief, appellee may, but is not required to, file an amended or supplemental response brief no later than THIRTY DAYS thereafter. If appellant fails to file an amended or supplemental brief, then in due course the case will be submitted on appellant's brief filed in this Court on July 1, 2014.
In Adams, the supreme court considered new arguments supporting appellant's consistent position (issues) asserted to the trial court and on appeal. The supreme court wrote,
[Appellant] was not required on appeal or at trial to rely on precisely the same case law or statutory subpart that we now find persuasive. See Greene v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 446 S.W.3d 761, 764 n.4 (Tex. 2014) ("We do not consider issues that were not raised in the courts below, but parties are free to construct new arguments in support of issues properly before the Court."); Marino v. King, 355 S.W.3d 629, 634 (Tex. 2011) ("Constitutional imperatives favor the determination of cases on their merits rather than on harmless procedural defaults.").547 S.W.3d at 896-97; see Am. Realty Tr., Inc. v. Andrews Kurth, LLP, No. 05-16-01433-CV, 2018 WL 2126819, at *3 n.6 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 8, 2018, pet. denied).
/s/David Evans
DAVID EVANS
JUSTICE