Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of July 31, 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.

In re Ben E. Keith Co., No. 02-06-00071-CV (Aug. 3, 2006) (orig. proceeding) (McCoy, J., joined by Cayce, C.J.; Walker, J., dissents with opinion).: Held: In this mandamus proceeding involving multiple consolidated lawsuits arising from the sale of spoiled chili, the trial court abused its discretion by denying Relator’s motion to sever its co-defendant’s business tort cross-claims from the plaintiffs’ personal injury claims. The bifurcation order was insufficient to remedy the high likelihood of jury confusion and prejudice and the opportunity for the plaintiffs and Relator's co-defendant to bootstrap their claims on each other’s evidence. Under the complex facts involved in the underlying consolidated lawsuits, the trial court's refusal to sever presented an injustice that could not be remedied on appeal.; Dissent: Because the trial court understood Relator’s arguments that it would be prejudiced by a joint trial of all claims against it, entered a bifurcation order to address the arguments, and intended to enter an additional order before jury selection, Relator’s original petition for writ of mandamus—filed before the trial court signed the bifurcation order and seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to grant Relator’s motion for severance—became moot. Accordingly, this court should dismiss its petition for writ of mandamus. Regarding Relator’s complaints concerning the adequacy of the trial court’s bifurcation order, Relator has an adequate remedy at law—an appeal—if, in fact, it suffers prejudice despite the bifurcated trial procedure ordered by the trial court.
In the Interest of T.C. & G.C., No. 02-05-00074-CV (Aug. 3, 2006) (Walker, J., joined by Cayce, C.J., and McCoy, J.).: Held: Texas Family Code section 263.405 does not violate the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause of the United States and Texas Constitutions because both indigent and non-indigent Appellants have the equal right and opportunity to appeal a frivolousness finding, nor does section 263.405 violate Appellants’ constitutional right to an appeal with a full record because this court ordered, obtained, and reviewed the reporter’s record from the trial. Additionally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding Appellants’ appeals would be frivolous.