Over the last few years the Texas Supreme Court has slowly added details to its ground-breaking pronouncement that a trial court can't grant a new trial without "reasonably specific" reasons supported by the record. See In re Columbia Medical Center of Los Colinas, 290 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. 2009); In re United Scaffolding, Inc., 377 S.W.3d 685 (Tex. 2012); In re Toyota Motor Sales, 407 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. 2013).
In December I posted about In re Bent, No. 14-1006, which was pending before the Texas Supreme Court. The court had just heard oral argument in a run-of-the-mill insurance case that had the potential to answer an open question on the proper standard for an appellate court's review of a new trial order. Or in the court's words, to what extent could an appellate court review a trial court's conclusions that "implicate the shades of grey inherent in weighing evidence and the appropriate level of deference afforded to a trial court's estimation of that evidence[?]"
The Supreme Court, unfortunately, declined to answer this question. Instead, it held that the trial court's order was facially insufficient because its explanation merely suggested a "muddled legal-and factual-sufficiency evaluation of the evidence." The Supreme Court noted that despite a fairly detailed explanation supported by evidence, "the trial court's explanation does little to assure the parties that the jury's decision was set aside only after careful thought and for valid reasons."
The Supreme Court reiterated that "merits review" entails determining whether the record supports the trial court's rationale for the new trial order, but made clear that "the abuse-of-discretion standard applies to merits review just as it does in all mandamus proceedings."
We will have to wait for another case to clarify how far an appellate court can go in reviewing a trial court's weighing of the evidence in a mandamus action on a new trial order. But for now, if you are seeking a new trial, be sure the trial judge understands what needs to be in the order to make it appeal-proof.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
