Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of January 09, 2012

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.

In re Strickland, No. 02-11-00501-CV (Jan. 10, 2012) (Livingston, C.J., joined by Walker, J.; McCoy, J., dissents without opinion).

Held: Based on the prohibition codified in family code section 156.006(b) precluding the trial court from issuing a temporary order effecting a change in the designation of the person having the right to designate the primary residence of the child, and the absence of evidence triggering a statutory exception to this prohibition, the court was compelled to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by making a temporary ruling that Relator's children must remain "in the area" pending the preparation of a social study in connection with Real Party in Interest's motion to modify.

Matlock Place Apts., L.P. v. Druce, No. 02-09-00130-CV (Jan. 12, 2012) (Gardner, J., joined by Walker, J.; Dauphinot, J., dissents without opinion).

Held: The sale contract between Appellant Matlock Place Apartments and Appellee Druce Properties contained an enforceable disclaimer of reliance clause, and Appellee presented legally insufficient evidence to support its breach of contract claim. Appellee did, however, present legally and factually sufficient evidence to support its claims against Appellants Hagop Kofdarali and Robbie L. Sebern Burns. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by submitting a spoliation instruction in the jury charge, but the trial court did abuse its discretion by submitting a legally incorrect instruction in the jury charge concerning the "as is" clause in the sale contract.

Black v. State, No. 02-10-00283-CR (Jan. 12, 2012) (Dauphinot, J., joined by Gardner and McCoy, JJ.).

Held: The trial court abused its discretion by admitting images of the text messages from the cell phone found on Appellant's person at his arrest and by admitting the testimony that the text messages were drug messages. But given the entire record, we cannot say that the trial court's error was harmful.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «