Second Court of Appeals
Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of November 16, 2020.
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 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 02-20-00144-CV (Nov. 19, 2020) (orig. proceeding) (Birdwell, J., joined by Sudderth, C.J., and Bassel, J.).
Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering Relator (an insurance company) to respond to the real-party-in-interest’s (the insured’s) written discovery requesting information about how Relator had adjusted the real-party-in-interest’s underinsured motorist claim. The supreme court’s Brainard v. Trinity Universal Insurance Co., 216 S.W.3d 809, 818–19 (Tex. 2006), opinion was not controlling. Instead, the supreme court’s Arnold v. National County Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 725 S.W.2d 165, 166–67 (Tex. 1987), opinion, as later modified by Murray v. San Jacinto Agency, Inc., 800 S.W.2d 826, 828–29 (Tex. 1990), applied.
In re S.W., No. 02-20-00159-CV (Nov. 19, 2020) (Sudderth, C.J., joined by Kerr and Birdwell, JJ.).
Held: For purposes of establishing restricted-appeal jurisdiction in this appeal from a termination-of-parental-rights judgment, Mother did not participate in the hearing that resulted in the complained-of judgment by executing a statutory affidavit of relinquishment before the private adoption agency filed suit. But even though the court has jurisdiction over Mother’s restricted appeal, she did not show error on the face of the record because the only evidence she relied on was attached to her untimely motion for new trial. The court does not have jurisdiction over the appeal filed by the man purporting to be the child’s father (Father) because the judgment recites that no man had registered with the State’s paternity registry at the time of judgment and Father had not been named a party or made an appearance in the suit.