Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of January 27, 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.

Harrison v. BNSF Ry. Co., No. 02-12-00476-CV - Opinion , 02-12-00476-CV - Concurrence and Dissent (Jan. 30, 2014) (Meier, J., joined by Livingston, C.J.; Gabriel, J., concurs and dissents with opinion).

Held:  Harrison's FELA claim for injuries that he allegedly sustained while stepping onto ballast used for track support is precluded by the FRSA.

Concurrence and Dissent:  Although Harrison's FELA claim regarding the size and condition of ballast used for track support is precluded by FRSA, Harrison's FELA claim based on BNSF's failure to provide a safe walkway is not precluded by FRSA. Thus, the trial court erred by granting a final summary judgment on all of Harrison's claims.

Adetomiwa v. State, Nos. 02-12-00632-CR , 02-12-00633-CR (Jan. 30, 2014) (Walker, J., joined by Livingston, C.J., and Dauphinot, J.).

Held:  Because the amendments to the evading arrest statute are reconcilable such that Senate Bill 1416 amended the punishment scheme to provide that evading arrest is a third degree felony if the actor uses a vehicle in flight, Appellant's conviction and sentence for the third-degree-felony offense of evading arrest is not void and does not exceed the maximum punishment; the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellant's motions for new trial.

Sanders v. State, No. 02-13-00254-CR - Opinion , 02-13-00254-CR - Dissent (Jan. 30, 2014) (Livingston, C.J., joined by Walker, J.; Gardner, J., dissents with opinion).

Held:  During the punishment phase of appellant's trial for assault against someone with whom he had a dating relationship, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting his daughter's written statement that he had sexually abused her several years earlier.

Dissent:  The trial court abused its discretion because the statement is inherently prejudicial and its potential for unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value, which is slight. The sentence should be reversed because the trial court's error affected appellant's substantial rights.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «