Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of May 30, 2011

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.

Robertson v. Home State Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co.,   No. 02-08-00280-CV    (June 2, 2011)   (en banc) (Meier, J., joined by Livingston, C.J., and Gardner, Walker, McCoy, and Gabriel, JJ.; Dauphinot, J., concurs without opinion).

Held:   The trial court did not err by granting Home State's motion for summary judgment on the ground that coverage under the Policy for Robertson's claims against Redi-Mix is excluded under the employee exclusion, and the "domestic employees" exception to the employee exclusion does not apply to extend coverage to Robertson under the Policy. In light of the labor code and the transportation code, "domestic employees" can be given a definite and certain legal meaning: persons engaged in employment incidental to a personal residence.

In re C.E.S.,   No. 02-10-00159-CV    (June 2, 2011)   (Walker, J., joined by Livingston, C.J.; and Gardner, J.).

Held:   Estoppel is available as an affirmative defense in a child support enforcement action brought by the Office of the Attorney General as an assignee of a parent obligee because the OAG steps into the shoes of the assignor/obligee and takes the assigned rights subject to all defenses that an opposing party might be able to assert against the assignor/obligee.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «