Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of August 21, 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 K. D., No. 02-0004-349 (Aug. 24, 2006) (op. on reh'g) (Gardner, J., joined by Walker and McCoy, JJ.).: 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 Appellant‛s 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 Appellant's appeal would be frivolous.
Dunnagan & Parker County's Squaw Creek Downs v. Watson, No. 02-0004-381 (Aug. 24, 2006) (Holman, J., joined by Cayce, C.J., and Livingston, J.).: Held: The evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Dunnagan's actions rendered it not practicable for the limited partnership to continue. The trial court did not err by denying Dunnagan’s motion to disregard jury findings and to reform judgment because the jury's answer to question number two did not conclusively negate or render immaterial its answer to question number eight and Watson did not have unclean hands. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to strike Watson’s second amended petition, which was filed seven days before trial, or by denying his motion for new trial. On Watson’s cross-appeal, the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Watson breached fiduciary duties owed to the limited partnership and the jury’s finding assessing damages to the limited partnership.
Ridgeway v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Corp., No. 02-0005-253 (Aug. 24, 2006) (Cayce, C.J., joined by Dauphinot and Gardner, JJ.).: Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that none of the alternatives proposed by Appellants—(1) certifying a nominal damages class, (2) certifying a liability-only class, or (3) using an aggregated damages model to determine class-wide damages—would satisfy the predominance requirement of Tex. R. Civ. P. 42(b)(3). Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellants' request for class certification.