Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of May 22, 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.

St. George v. State, No. 02-0003-421, 02-03-00422-CR (May 25, 2006) (En banc on reh'g) (Gardner, J., joined by Dauphinot, Livingston, and Walker, JJ.; Cayce, C.J., Holman and McCoy, JJ., dissent without opinion).: Held: Police lacked a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing to justify continued detention of Appellant, who was a passenger in a car stopped by police for a broken license plate lamp, after police issued a ticket to the driver and the purpose of the original stop concluded. Police did not learn that Appellant had misidentified himself and had several outstanding warrants until some ten minutes after the purpose of the stop concluded. Thus, the trial court erred by failing to suppress evidence of drugs found on Appellant when police arrested him.
Salahat v. Kincaid, No. 02-0005-399 (May 25, 2006) (Livingston, J., joined by Holman, J.; McCoy, J., concurs with opinion).: Held: Summary judgment on limitations grounds was proper when suit filed on February 26, 2004, two years and one day after date of automobile accident, February 25, 2002. Rule 4 of rules of civil procedure does not extend the limitations period an additional day beyond the two-year period set forth in section 16.003(a) of the civil practice and remedies code.; Concurrence: The suit was not filed within the limitations period, as shown by examples that harmonize Rule 4 and section 311.014 of the code construction act regarding calculation of time periods.
Meroney v. City of Colleyville & Jones, No. 02-0005-195 (May 25, 2006) (Livingston, J., joined by Dauphinot and Holman, JJ.).: Held: Trial court did not err by granting City’s plea to the jurisdiction; that Meroney only sought injunctive relief against City did not waive City’s immunity because a claim for injunctive relief is maintainable only against government official—not government entity—for unauthorized acts. In addition, trial court’s dismissal of Assistant Fire Chief was proper only as to Meroney’s claims against Assistant Fire Chief in his official capacity. Recently revised section 101.106 of the Tort Claims Act—the election of remedies provision—applies only to claims brought under the Tort Claims Act, and defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, to the extent asserted against Assistant Fire Chief in his individual capacity, are specifically excluded from scope of Tort Claims Act.