in Re United Scaffolding, Inc., 377 S.W.3d 685

Levine sued United Scaffolding for negligence; jury assigned 51% fault to United and awarded future medical expenses but nothing for past damages.
Trial court granted Levine’s motion for a new trial “in the interest of justice and fairness.”
Texas appellatemandamus in In re Columbia required trial courts to specify reasons for new-trial grants and not rely solely on justice-based rationales.
United (and amici) challenged the amended order that listed four reasons with the prefix ‘and/or,’ including ‘in the interest of justice and fairness.’
Court held that the amended order violated In re Columbia by rendering ambiguity due to ‘and/or’ and reliance on ‘in the interest of justice,’ and conditionally granted mandamus to vacate the order.
Court declined to compel rendering judgment on the verdict, noting the trial court must provide valid, specific reasons for the new-trial grant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do the amended reasons satisfy In re Columbia?	Levine argues reasons lack specificity and rely on ‘in the interest of justice.’	United argues the four reasons, though uncertain, are sufficient and should be reviewed substantively.	No; ambiguity from 'and/or' and 'in the interest of justice' render the order insufficient.
Is using 'and/or' and 'in the interest of justice' independently or collectively invalid as a new-trial basis?	Levine contends these phrases are not independently valid rationales for a new trial.	United contends the order can rest on multiple valid rationales beyond boilerplate phrasing.	Invalid; these phrases fail to provide a reasonably specific, valid basis for new-trial relief.
Should the court compel rendition of judgment on the verdict?	Levine seeks judgment on the verdict if the new-trial order is infirm.	United asserts mandamus should direct judgment only if no valid basis exists for the new-trial order.	No; remedy is to remand for a properly stated new-trial order; not automatic rendition of judgment.

In re Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas, 290 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. 2009) (trial courts must provide reasonably specific reasons; broad 'in the interest of justice' not sufficient)
Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1986) (detail the evidence and why it is insufficient on appeal; not a direct template for trial courts)
Scott v. Monsanto Co., 868 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1989) (cited regarding substitution of judgment concerns in trial court reasoning)
In re BMW, 8 S.W.3d 326 (Tex. 2000) (concern over improper motivation or rubber-stamped reasons in new-trial orders)
Lloyd v. Brinck, 35 Tex. 1 (Tex. 1871) (mandamus relief for lack of reason in a new-trial order)
In re Baylor Medical Center at Garland, 289 S.W.3d 859 (Tex. 2009) (contextual relevance to trial-record considerations in new-trial review)