Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of January 30, 2006

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions can be accessed by clicking the cause number then clicking View HTML Version of Opinion.

Scott-Richter v. Taffarello, No. 02-0005-122 (Feb. 2, 2006) (Holman, J., joined by Cayce, C.J., and McCoy, J.).: Held: This court has jurisdiction over this appeal because Appellants offered a reasonable explanation for the late filing of their notice of appeal, which they timely amended. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellants’ request for a jury trial and by awarding Appellees attorneys’ fees. The trial court did not err by granting Appellees’ amended motion to enforce a settlement agreement.
Tijerina v. State , No. 02-0004-391 (Feb. 2, 2006) (Walker, J., joined by Dauphinot and McCoy, JJ.).: Held: The trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting the defense from asking potential jurors during voir dire whether they would automatically disbelieve a convicted felon. The question was a proper commitment question under Lydia v. State, 117 S.W.3d 902, 904 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref'd) (op. on remand), and Appellant’s substantial rights were affected by this error.
Residential Dynamics, LLC v. Gerald Loveless and Lynn Loveless, No. 02-0005-306 (Feb. 2, 2006) (Holman, J., joined by Dauphinot and Gardner, JJ.).: Held: The trial court erred in granting Appellees’ no evidence motion for summary judgment. The affidavit of Appellant’s manager presents genuine issues of material fact on Appellant’s claims for breach of contract and quantum meruit. The statements contained within the affidavit were not conclusory. Additionally, although the affidavit did not contain a jurat, the affidavit was competent summary judgment proof because it met Texas’s statutory requirements for affidavits.