Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of September 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.

Otero v. Richardson,   No. 02-09-00401-CV    (Sept. 30, 2010)    (Walker, J., joined by Livingston, C.J., and Dauphinot, J.).

Held:    The trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling Dr. Otero's objections to the expert report of Dr. Drazner because the report is sufficient to satisfy the statutory elements of an expert report concerning Richardson's claim that Dr. Otero failed to timely diagnose and treat her ankle fracture.

Carmell v. State,   No. 02-97-00197-CR    (Sept. 30, 2010)    (Livingston, C.J., joined by Gardner and Meier, JJ.).

Held: &bsp;  The United States Supreme Court's opinion reversing this court's February 12, 1998 judgment affirming appellant's conviction on counts seven through ten did not require appellant's acquittal on those counts in this subsequent out-of-time appeal. The State was not required to raise corroboration as an alternate ground for affirming the four convictions in the 1997 appeal; because the evidence was sufficient to corroborate the victim's outcry, we once again affirm the convictions.

Hampton-Vaughan Funeral Home v. Briscoe,    No. 02-09-00057-CV    (Sept. 30, 2010)    (Livingston, C.J., joined by Dauphinot and McCoy, JJ.).

Held:    The trial court erred by denying Hampton-Vaughan Funeral Home's motion to set aside the default judgment in favor of the Briscoe family because the evidence showed that Hampton-Vaughan's in-house counsel's failure to file an answer amounted to mere negligence rather than a conscious intention not to answer. Counsel failed to answer even after the answer date was possibly extended by the Briscoes, but he averred that he thought Hampton-Vaughan and the Briscoes would be meeting to discuss settlement, and he did not hear anything else about the case until the default judgment had been rendered.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «