Bracewell’s Yvonne Ho recently broke down Texas Supreme Court cases Dawn Nettles v. Gtech Corp et al. and Gtech v. James Steele et al. as part of Law360 reporter Michelle Casady’s look at the biggest rulings of the term.
The court ended up issuing two partially concurring, partially dissenting opinions alongside the majority’s ruling, elaborating on how the different justices characterized the “relevant work at issue” that was the basis for the claims, said Ho, noting that the court “dodged” a bigger question about whether derivative sovereign immunity is recognized in Texas.
“Chief Justice [Nathan L.] Hecht frames it with, ultimately, the buck stops with the lottery commission. … [T]hey signed off on it, they controlled it,” said Ho referencing one of the partially dissenting, partially concurring opinions. “The majority said the challenged conduct wasn’t the game overall, it was the failure to modify the instructions. This is one of those instances where how you frame the question certainly affects the answer you get.”