WPCG5 2~ ZBVXXN\  PXPa1DocumentDocument StyleF *  ׃  a2DocumentDocument Style*    a3DocumentDocument Style0     2Zpe epa4DocumentDocument Style . a5DocumentDocument Style   a6DocumentDocument Style   a7DocumentDocument Style ` ` ` 2p   Ha8DocumentDocument Style` ` ` a1TechnicalTechnical Document Style 4!     a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style *    a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style '    2/  'a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style &    a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style &  . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style&  . a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style&  . 2 a  w  a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style&   . a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers8!"@   a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersA#$@` `  ` ` ` a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersJ%&@  ` `  2  K  a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersS'(@  a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers\)*@hh# hhh a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numberse+,@( hh# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersn-.@- ( 2T>a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw/0@pp2 -ppp     X0Í ÍX0Í ÍRoman 12ptRoman Courier 12pt'12#d6X@@#Op. DraftOpinion -- Draft34  (c#XN\  PXP#   3 1, 4 @&D R A F T` APage  _______________________________________________________ 2njItalic 12ptItalics Courier 12pt type'56'#x6NhH##x6NhH#BibliogrphyBibliography78 Doc InitInitialize Document Style9:    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentҲTech InitInitialize Technical Style;< 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2H 3!"_PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper=>   ,#XN\  PXP# X  y*dddyy*dddy H\1 H\2 H\3 H\4 H\5 H\6 H\7 H\8 H\9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   Home PtrSets codes for printing opinions on Sperry Laser Q?@ X #Xx6X@X@#  EnvelopeEnvelope!AB '3 II    Xp,  p,p, Letter 2Personal stationery with standard margins"bCD#XN\  PXP#   p,  3 1, 4 2#K$%p&pLetter 3Personal stationery with narrow margins#bEF#&R2P&P#     3 1, 4 Letter 1Court stationery$PGH#XZ2P XP# * 3 1, 4 ؃ Single Space% I J1Document Style&KL` ` ` 2!'q(e0 )e * 2Document Style'M N . 3Document Style( OP 4Document Style) QR 5Document Style**ST   2#+p!,/"-".\#6Document Style+UV` ` ` 7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers,8WX@   8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers-AYZ@` `  ` ` ` 9Document Style.0[ \    2&/#$0$1t%2*&10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers/J]^@  ` `  11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers0S_`@  12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers1\ab@hh# hhh 13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers2ecd@( hh# 2)3'4'5(6n)14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers3nef@- ( 15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers4wgh@pp2 -ppp 16Document Style5Fij *  ׃  17Technical Document Style6&kl  . 2o,7%*8*9F+:+18Technical Document Style7&mn  . 19Technical Document Style8*op    20Technical Document Style9'qr   21Technical Document Style:&st   2 5;,<Q-=-0[.22Technical Document Style;4u$v     23Technical Document Style<&wx  . 24Technical Document Style=&yz  . īXN\  PXPx9 Z6Times New Roman RegularXd6X@@<6X9`("Courier NewTTXN\  PXP%\  `$Times NewRomanXx6NhHH  9`(.Courier NewItalicTTx6NhHH  9`(.Courier NewItalicTTXN\  PXP%\  `$Times NewRomanXXx6X@X@<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXN\  PXP% [  `*Times New RomanTTX&R2P&P7|A`$ArialTT&XZ2P XP& A`ArialTTX2=5E53|x  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ă & &No. 960545ă & Ford Motor Company, Petitioner  *v.ă Susan Renae Miles, individually and a/n/f of Willie Searcy and Jermaine Searcy, minors, and Kenneth Miles, Respondents   On Application for Writ of Error to the _ Court of Appeals for the Sixth District of Texasă   Argued on November 21, 1996 Justice Hankinson, joined by Justice Enoch, Justice Spector, and Justice Baker, dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the Courts opinion on the threshold and dispositive issue of venue. The Court begins by citing the correct standard of review for venue determinations, but then fails to apply it properly. A reviewing court must defer to the trial courts venue determination if any probative evidence supports the trial courts venue ruling, even if the preponderance of the evidence is to the contrary. See Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc., 868 S.W.2d 752, 758 (Tex. 1993). Ruiz, expounding on the seminal case of Milligan v. Southern Express, Inc., 250 S.W.2d 194 (Tex. 1952), made clear that a necessary condition for maintaining venue against a corporation is the presence in the county of either an agent or a representative seised of broad power and discretion to act for the corporation. Ruiz, 868 S.W.2d at 759. The Mileses met the standard for maintaining venue in Rusk County by producing evidence that Premier exercised discretion on behalf of Ford in several respects. It promoted and advertised Ford vehicles, incorporated Ford warranties into Premier sales contracts, performed predelivery inspections, recall and safety corrections for Ford, and had final approval of warranty work done for Ford at the dealership. Under the deferential standard of review, this is some probative evidence that Premier retained broad discretion to act in some respects for Ford, and that Ford consequently maintained an agency or representative in Rusk County. See General Motors Corp. v. Ramsey, 633 S.W.2d 646, 648 (Tex. App. " Waco 1982, writ dismd) (sustaining venue on dealers contractual duty to inspect vehicles and correct defects); Shell Oil Co. v. SealySmith Found., 624 S.W.2d 643, 64445 (Tex. App. " Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, no writ) (sustaining venue in part on distributors contractual obligation to promote Shell products); Skelly Oil Co. v. Medart, 488 S.W.2d 175, 17677 (Tex. Civ. App. " Waco 1972, no writ) (sustaining venue on sales and promotion of Skelly products); AllisChalmers Mfg. Co. v. Coplin, 445 S.W.2d 627, 628 (Tex. Civ. App. " Texarkana 1969, no writ) (sustaining venue on dealers authority to enter into binding warranty agreement on behalf of manufacturer); Ford Motor Co. v. Lemieux Lumber Co., 418 S.W.2d 909, 91011 (Tex. Civ. App. " Beaumont 1967, no writ) (sustaining venue on dealers provision of warranty). As with its application of the standard of review, the Courts analysis of the substantive standard for determining venue fails to give due weight to the particular facts of this case. In rejecting the Mileses argument that they produced some probative evidence meeting the appropriate standard, the Court examines in detail only Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Mapco, Inc., 570 S.W.2d 164 (Tex. Civ. App. " Amarillo 1978, no writ), and Rouse v. Shell Oil Co., 577 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. Civ. App. " Corpus Christi 1979, writ dismd), both of which involved employees, not dealerships or other similar business arrangements. The Court does not analyze the dealership cases supporting venue or explain why those cases are less authoritative than CIG and Rouse, which appear factually distinguishable from the cause before us. Resolution of venue issues perforce requires detailed factual analysis; the Courts failure to give due weight to the facts in this case is thus all the more troubling. I disagree with the Courts venue decision, and accordingly, I dissent. Because the Court remands for a new trial, it need not reach the jury charge or evidentiary issues Justice Owen discusses in Parts IV and V of her concurring opinion.     Deborah G. Hankinson Justice OPINION DELIVERED: March 19, 1998