Cessna Aircraft Co. v. AIRCRAFT NETWORK, LLC., 345 S.W.3d 139

Background

Cessna sued Aircraft Network for damages to a jet and related reimbursement promises; jury awarded damages on several claims including promissory estoppel.
Trial court entered a final judgment awarding damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorney's fees.
On appeal, this court reduced some damages, reinstated promissory estoppel, and remanded to reconsider attorney's fees.
On remand, a jury awarded five categories of attorney's fees: fees for the first appeal, the Supreme Court appeal, remand-related preparation/trial, another appeal to the court of appeals, and another Supreme Court appeal.
Cessna challenged the remand judgment as a 'second final judgment' and challenged the inclusion of certain fee components, including Supreme Court appeal fees.
The court held the remand judgment was proper, not a nullity, and affirmed the award of costs and attorney's fees.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the remand judgment is a second final judgment	Cessna contends the remand judgment nullifies earlier final judgment and violates final-judgment rules.	Aircraft contends the remand judgment is proper and replaces the prior final judgment on remand issues.	Remand judgment proper; not a nullity.
Whether the remand judgment falls within the mandate scope	Cessna argues the trial court exceeded the mandate by addressing more than costs and fees.	Aircraft argues the remand addressed only costs and attorney's fees as directed.	Trial court acted within the mandate; proper scope limited to costs and attorney's fees.
Whether attorney's fees on remand including appellate fees were proper	Cessna asserts inclusion of fees for proving fees and Supreme Court appellate fees were improper.	Aircraft contends such fees are recoverable under Chapter 38 as part of a successful remedy.	Fees for proving fees and appellate fees were recoverable; not error.
Whether the Supreme Court appellate fees on remand were properly awarded	Cessna argues the Supreme Court fee component was improper since Aircraft did not prevail there.	Aircraft contends the remand award did not depend on prevailing on the Supreme Court petition and remains valid.	Remand appellate fees properly awarded.
Whether law-of-the-case or other prior rulings precluded revisiting pre/post-judgment interest or related tolling	Cessna seeks recalculation of interest and tolling provisions.	Aircraft argues those issues were law-of-the-case or outside the remand scope.	Law-of-the-case principles apply; previous rulings not revisited on remand.

Key Cases Cited

Cook v. Cameron, 733 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. 1987) (final judgment becomes judgment of both courts when affirmed or rendered)
Dallas County v. Sweitzer, 971 S.W.2d 629 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1998) (mandate controls trial court's actions after appellate judgment)
Bramlett v. Phillips, 322 S.W.3d 443 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2010) (mandate limits trial court jurisdiction on remand)
Denton County v. Tarrant County, 139 S.W.3d 22 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004) (mandate scope and ministerial nature of remand orders)
Medina v. Benkiser, 317 S.W.3d 296 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009) (law-of-the-case doctrine governs subsequent proceedings)
Jay Petroleum, L.L.C. v. EOG Resources, Inc., 332 S.W.3d 534 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (scope of remand determined by mandate and opinion)
Martin v. Credit Prot. Ass'n Inc., 824 S.W.2d 254 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992) (trial court must follow appellate mandate; ministerial duties on remand)
Jones v. American Airlines, Inc., 131 S.W.3d 261 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004) (conditioning appellate fees on unsuccessful appeal)
Pringle v. Moon, 158 S.W.3d 607 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005) (law-of-the-case principle governs final adjudications)
Intercontinental Grp. v. KB Home Lone Star L.P., 295 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. 2009) (prevailing party standard depends on statute and relief obtained)