The Supreme Court of Texas heard competing arguments over whether Victoria County should have been designated as a responsible third party and whether that designation should have been struck under Section 33.003.

Respondent counsel told the court the county's actions occurred years before the Colleys purchased the land and could not have caused the flooding they now allege. "Victoria County could not logically have caused them any injuries," counsel said, arguing the temporal gap (county acts before the 2013 purchase) means there is no evidence Victoria County caused any portion of the claimed nuisance injury.

Petitioners pressed that Chapter 33 requires the jury to consider proportionate responsibility when there is evidence a nonparty may have contributed to harm. The court and counsel discussed the specific procedural device at issue: a motion to strike a responsible-third-party designation under Section 33.003, which allows a party, after adequate discovery, to move to strike the designation on the ground that there is no evidence the designated person is responsible for any portion of the claimant's alleged injury or damages.

Justices questioned whether the designation should have been submitted to the jury and whether the record contains evidence that Victoria County's earlier conduct contributed to the Colleys' later flooding. Respondent emphasized the purchasers "took the property as is in 2013," and that the evidence showed subsequent actions (construction by other parties) caused water to back up onto the Colleys' property.

Counsel and the court also addressed the distinction between comparative fault and causation/damages: certain defendant conduct, respondents said, goes to the measure of damages (value of the land after injury) rather than to comparative-fault reduction of the plaintiff's recovery.

Argument concluded without a ruling; the court took the questions under submission.