Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of January 21, 2014

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.

Weatherford Tex. Hosp. Co. v. Smart, No. 02-13-00063-CV Jan. 23, 2014) (McCoy, J., joined by Dauphinot and Walker, JJ.)

Held:  For a safety related claim to fall under the Texas Medical Liability Act's health care liability claim definition, there must be some connection between the claim and the provision of health care. Because a nonpatient visitor's premises liability claim against a hospital for a slip and fall in the hospital lobby is totally unrelated to the provision of health care services, it is not a health care liability claim under the TMLA.

In re D.D.G, No. 02-13-00307-CV (Jan. 23, 2014) (Gardner, J., joined by Livingston, C.J., and Dauphinot, J.)

Held:  The evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court's family code section 161.001(1)(R) finding.

In re PrairieSmarts, No. 02-13-00338-CV - Opinion , 02-13-00338-CV - Concurrence (Jan. 23, 2014) (Walker, J., joined by Gardner, J.; Meier, J., concurs with opinion).

Held:  Because PrairieSmarts established that all of the information sought by TD Ameritrade in its verified rule 202 petition, with the exception of one deposition topic, constitutes trade secret information, and because TD Ameritrade did not satisfy the burden under rule 507 of the rules of evidence establishing necessity, we hold that Respondent abused his discretion by ordering the presuit depositions and document production.

Concurrence:  The majority opinion does not preclude a trial court from revisiting this discovery issue if any of the parties to this mandamus action later file a petition for relief.

Kirk v. State, No. 02-12-00095-CR - Opinion , 02-12-00095-CR - Dissent (Jan. 23, 2014) (McCoy, J., joined by Meier, J.; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion).

Held:  The trial court did not violate article 36.16 when, after receiving three notes indicating the jury was deadlocked on count one, it became convinced that an erroneous charge was given and issued a supplement instruction that directed the jury to consider the lesser-included offenses.

Dissent:  The trial court erred by sua sponte supplementing the jury charge after deliberations began. The jury did not request the charge, the trial court did not state on the record that the original charge was erroneous, and the majority does not hold that the original charge was erroneous.

Stobaugh v. State, No. 02-11-00157-CR Jan. 23, 2014) (Walker, J., joined by McCoy and Gabriel, JJ.).

Held:  Because, viewing all of the circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences from that evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the cumulative force of all of the circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences from that evidence are insufficient to convince any rational factfinder beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant Charles Stobaugh acted with the requisite mens rea necessary to support his conviction for murder, the evidence is insufficient to establish the mens rea element of murder.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «