Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of July 20, 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.

Salazar v. State,   No. 02-08-00111-CR    (July 23, 2009)   (Meier, J., joined by Livingston, J.; Walker, J., concurs without opinion).

Held:    As previously held in Jackson v. State, 50 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref’d), the Texas Constitution’s Due Course of Law provision provides the same level of protection as the United States Constitution’s Due Process Clause; therefore, to show a due course of law violation based on the State’s destruction of potentially useful evidence, a defendant must demonstrate that the State acted in bad faith. Appellant failed to show that the officer in this case acted in bad faith.

Tex. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Baker,   No. 02-08-00165-CV    (July 23, 2009)   (Meier, J., joined by Cayce, C.J.; McCoy, J., concurs without opinion).

Held:   Sufficient evidence supports the jury’s determination that the employee was entitled to supplemental income benefits. But because it was the employee who disputed the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission’s finding that she was not entitled to supplemental income benefits and there had never been an initial determination that she was entitled to supplemental income benefits, the plain language of Texas Labor Code section 408.147(c) did not provide for her recovery of attorneys’ fees.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «