Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of August 03, 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.

Markel Ins. Co. v. Muzyka,   No. 02-09-00030-CV    (Aug. 6, 2009)   (Walker, J., joined by Cayce, C.J., and Livingston, J.).

Held:    The trial court did not err by rendering judgment against Markel that Muzyka’s medical expense claim is covered under the insurance policy issued by Markel. The language of the policy exclusion for “Sporting or Exercise Activit[y]” is not ambiguous, and Kennedy Muzyka’s injury sustained during “the helicopter” game was not an injury incurred while participating in a “Sporting or Exercise Activit[y]” that fell within the policy’s exclusion.

Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Gilfeather,   No. 02-07-00459-CV    (August 6, 2009)   (op. on reh’g) (en banc) (McCoy, J., joined by Cayce, C.J., and Livingston, Gardner, and Meier, JJ.; Walker, J., concurs without opinion; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion).  [Note: Both opinions are at the same link in one document.]

Held:   Substantial evidence supported the findings required for the administrative law judge to suspend Appellee’s license. The arresting officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Appellee because Appellee was speeding. The arresting officer had probable cause to believe that Appellee was driving while intoxicated based on the totality of the circumstances: Appellee’s eyes were red, bloodshot, and glassy, he had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath and unsteady balance, and he refused to participate in any field sobriety tests.

Dissent:   Appellee’s decision not to participate in field sobriety tests was a decision to decline to participate in that portion of the police interview and is not evidence of his inability to perform such tests. This court should not hold that refusal to participate in such tests constitutes evidence of guilt.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «