Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of December 8, 2008

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 (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

Playoff Corp. v. Blackwell,   No. 02-06-00249-CV    (Dec. 11, 2008)   (Gardner, J., joined by Dauphinot and McCoy, JJ.). [Note: This Opinion was withdrawn October 29, 2009.]

Held:   Although the term "fair market value" is ordinarily sufficiently definite to render a contract containing the term enforceable, an alleged oral employment contract calling for payment of 25% of employer corporation's fair market value to employee upon termination of employment was unenforceably indefinite because the uncontroverted evidence showed that the parties contemplated further negotiations and a future agreement that would define the method of calculating fair market value. Thus, the trial court did not err by granting a take-nothing judgment notwithstanding the verdict on employee's breach of contract claim.

Gifford v. Don Davis Auto, Inc.,   No. 02-07-00064-CV   (Dec. 11, 2008)   (Cayce, C.J., joined by Dauphinot and Gardner, JJ.).

Held:   A motor vehicle dealer is authorized under chapter 348 of the finance code to include a "dealer's inventory tax" in the list of itemized charges in a retail sales installment contract. As a matter of law, a motor vehicle dealer does not misrepresent the nature of the inventory tax where the dealer's installment contract tracks the language contained in a model installment contract promulgated by the Office of the Consumer Credit Commissioner.

In re D.M.F.,   No. 02-08-00212-CV   (Dec. 11, 2008)   (Livingston, J., joined by Holman, J.; Cayce, C.J., concurs without opinion). [Note: This Opinion was withdrawn April 16, 2009.]

Held:   The evidence is legally insufficient to support termination under either subsection H or O of family code section 161.001(1). The evidence does not support a conclusion that Appellant-father abandoned the child because his paternity was not established until after TDFPS had removed the child and filed termination proceedings; subsection H applies only to a parent, not an alleged parent. In addition, no specific order was admitted into evidence or identified as an order with which Appellant-father had not complied. Regardless, subsection O likewise applies only to a parent from whom the child was removed; because Appellant-father was only an alleged parent at the time the child was removed from the mother, the evidence does not support termination under subsection O.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «