Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of May 27, 2010

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.

Meeker v. Tarrant County Coll. Dist.,   No.02-09-00096-CV   (May 27, 2010)    (Gardner, J., joined by Dauphinot and Walker, JJ.).

Held:   Events occurring subsequent to the trial court’s summary judgment against Appellants rendered the appeal moot, and none of the recognized exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied.

Smith v. State,   Nos. 02-08-00390-CR, 02-08-00391-CR   (May 27, 2010)   (Gardner, J., joined by Livingston, C.J., and Walker, J.).

Held:   The evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support Appellant’s convictions. Further, the trial court did not err by admitting evidence of an extraneous offense because it was same transaction contextual evidence. Finally, Appellant failed to preserve his complaint concerning the trial court’s denial of a rule 105 limiting instruction concerning an extraneous offense.

Menefee v. Ohman,   No.  02-09-00379-CV   (May 27, 2010)   (Livingston, C.J., joined by Dauphinot and McCoy, JJ.).

Held:   The trial court abused its discretion by granting appellee’s objections to the expert report proffered by appellants and by dismissing appellants’ health care liability claims against appellee. Although appellee is a pediatrician and the expert is a psychiatrist, the expert’s report as a whole shows his training and experience in assessing and treating the medical condition at issue and he specifically states that treatment of the condition crosses practice specialties.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «