Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of January 16, 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.

Burgess v. Denton Cnty., Texas, No. 02-10-00279-CV (Jan. 19, 2012) (Dauphinot, J., joined by Livingston, C.J., and McCoy, J.).: Held: Appellants sued Appellees seeking a temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, and permanent injunction prohibiting Appellees from assessing, imposing, or collecting from them a $60 fee for service of citation by certified mail. Appellants also sought a declaratory judgment regarding the validity of an order by the commissioners court setting a $60 fee for that service. From the limited record, it appears that the commissioners court of Denton County has not set a fee for that service, and Appellants have therefore shown a probable right to recovery. Because Appellants also met the other requirements for a temporary injunction, the trial court abused its discretion by denying Appellants' motion for temporary injunction.

Binzer v. Alvey, No. 02-11-00316-CV (Jan. 19, 2011) (Livingston, C.J., joined by Walker and McCoy, JJ.): Held: Appellants waived their complaint that Appellee's timely filed expert report addresses some but not all of the claims in his live petition by failing to object to the report within twenty-one days after service.

Derichsweiler v. State, No. 02-08-00117-CR (Jan. 19, 2012) (op. on remand) (Walker, J., joined by Gardner, J.; Dauphinot, J., concurs without opinion).: Held: Even assuming rule of evidence 803(8)(B)'s hearsay exception for public records did not apply to the toxicology report prepared by the medical examiner's office, any error in admitting the report or the toxicologist's testimony about the report was harmless; Derichsweiler failed to preserve his Confrontation Clause complaint for our review; the trial court did not err by refusing Derichsweiler's request for a punishment charge that tracked the indictment's enhancement paragraphs; and the evidence was sufficient to support the enhancement of Derichsweiler's punishment under penal code section 12.42(d).