Laura Pressley v. Gregorio "Greg" Casar, 03-15-00368-CV

Election contest challenging runoff results for Place 4 on Austin City Council.
Clerk counted CVRs, not ballot images; images of ballots were largely not preserved.
Trial court granted Appellee Casar’s No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment and later sanctions against Pressley and her counsel.
Appellant asserted discovery errors and denial of access to proprietary materials; requested in-camera review and protective orders.
Court ultimately granted summary judgment on the merits and imposed sanctions; Pressley appeals on both issues and the sanctions posture.
The appellate issue includes whether CVRs can satisfy ballot-image requirements and whether sanctions were proper under Texas law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court err by granting no-evidence summary judgment?	Pressley produced more than a scintilla of evidence.	Casar contends no-evidence standard satisfied and evidence failed.	Yes; judgment reversed or remanded for trial.
Were sanctions against Pressley proper under Chapter 10 and Rule 11?	Pressley acted in good faith with evidentiary support; sanctions unwarranted.	Sanctions justified for improper conduct and abusive litigation tactics.	Sanctions improper; order vacated or remanded for proper consideration.

Alvarez v. Espinoza, 844 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1992) (election-process fairness and reliance on code procedures)
Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2011) (standing and equal protection; election-contest context)
In re: Continental General Tire, Inc., 979 S.W.2d 609 (Tex. 1998) (abuse of discretion; in camera review when privilege claims arise)
Valence Operating Co. v. Donell, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2004) (scope of appellate review; deference to evidence in no-evidence context)
Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2007) (sanctions factors; abuse-of-discretion standard)