Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of June 15, 2009

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.

In re J.W.L.,   No. 02-09-00009-CV    (June 15, 2009)   (Livingston, J., joined by Walker, J.; Cayce, C.J., concurs with opinion).  [Note: Both opinions are at the same link in one document.]

Held:   Relator father was not entitled to mandamus relief from the trial court’s temporary orders granting grandparents, real parties in interest and possessory conservators of M.W.L., temporary custody of M.W.L. to the exclusion of father after father violated the terms of the parties’ agreed custody order by failing to give grandparents prior notice that he was moving out of state with M.W.L. All of father’s arguments hinge on his challenge to grandparents’ standing in the modification suit in which the agreed order was entered; however, because this is a collateral attack on that order, father’s standing arguments fail because the order does not show a lack of standing on its face.

Concurrence:   The trial court’s order indefinitely depriving a presumably fit father of his parental rights—based on his moving out of state without notice to the grandparents, their vague allegations of his failing to take the child to a doctor or to an orthodontist, and hearsay allegations of his having assaulted an unnamed girlfriend—elevates the grandparents’ statutory visitation right over the father’s parental rights, potentially violating due process and counter to stated legislative policy.

RSI Int’l, Inc. v. CTC Transp., Inc.,   No. 02-08-00383-CV    (June 18, 2009)   (Walker, J., joined by Livingston and Meier, JJ.).

Held:    Applying the rules of construction, the coinsurance provision of a motor truck cargo liability policy is unambiguous as a matter of law. Thus, the policy’s limit of loss was required to be adjusted by the coinsurance percentage and the deductible.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «