Jerry Edwin Smith

Apparent authority was not established where the claimant neither consulted the company's member-managers nor reviewed its formation document and relied instead on an individual's access to bank accounts.

“Spin did not communicate with any of Jet’s member-managers, nor did Spin review Jet’s Certificate of Formation. Spin claims that because Owen had access to Jet’s bank accounts, it reasonably assumed he had authority. But Spin’s representative admitted that ‘just because someone knows how to access the bank account doesn’t mean that they have authority to act on behalf of the company.’ Thus, Spin was not reasonable in assuming Owen’s authority to bind Jet.”

Lost income and the temporary closure of businesses did not satisfy the physical-harm element of a negligent-undertaking claim under Texas law.

“They also claimed that Silver Fern’s lies ‘resulted in an injunction that prevented the Daughtrys from opening their lawful businesses,’ ‘eliminating their sources of income and severely limiting their ability to finance their defenses.’ None of that is ‘physical harm.’”

Reviewing a product ban, Smith required the agency to evaluate less burdensome alternatives and the risks of substitute products rather than dismissing those options conclusorily. A regulatory record should compare costs, benefits, and material alternatives for each use being restricted.

“The EPA’s failure to consider the regulatory alternatives, however, cannot be substantiated by conclusory statements that regulation would be insufficient.”

In a commercial-speech case, Smith required evidence that a trade name was actually or inherently misleading and considered disclaimers as a narrower response to possible confusion. A regulator should document the deception and explain why disclosure cannot address it before imposing a categorical ban.

“The means employed by the government actor need not be the ‘least restrictive means,’ but it must be ‘narrowly tailored to achieve the desired objective.’”

In an employment case, Smith distinguished workplace conduct that was harsh from conduct linked by competent evidence to race. A hostile-environment claim should connect the challenged policies, assignments, or remarks to the protected characteristic rather than rely on conclusory assertions of selective treatment.

“They testified that managers were ‘manipulative’ and ‘condescending’ and would ‘bully’ them. But the only links to race were conclusory assertions that Glow singled out black employees for enforcement.”