Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of November 6, 2006

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.

Gongora v. State, No. 02-05-00148-CR (Nov. 9, 2006) (Gardner, J., joined by Dauphinot and Holman, JJ.).: Held: The trial court's admission of statements made by one of the defendant's accomplices to a third party witness that expressly inculpated both the defendant and his accomplice did not violate the defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause. Rather, the statements were nontestimonial in nature and, therefore, fell outside the scope of protections afforded by the Sixth Amendment. Additionally, the court properly admitted the statements into evidence under the "statement against interest" exception to the hearsay rule.
GuideOne Ins. Co. v. Cupps, No. 02-05-00053-CV (Nov. 9, 2006) (Cayce, C.J., joined by Dauphinot and Walker, JJ.).: Held: The trial court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over GuideOne's claims against Cupps for fraud, conversion, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Theft Liability Act. All of these claims are based on GuideOne's allegation that Cupps had been fraudulently obtaining workers' compensation supplemental income benefits. The Texas Workers' Compensation Act gives the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission exclusive jurisdiction to make the initial determination regarding these claims. Because GuideOne failed to exhaust its administrative remedies under the Act, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over GuideOne's claims.
Grand Homes 96, L.P. v. Loudermilk, No. 02-06-00030-CV (Nov. 9, 2006) (Walker, J., joined by Livingston and McCoy, JJ.).: Held: The trial court did not err by compelling arbitration over Appellants' objection because they either were not deprived of the opportunity to present their waiver defense or as a matter of law cannot establish the Appellees' waiver of arbitration. Moreover, because there is no record from the arbitration proceedings, Appellants' other challenges to the arbitration award fail.