Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Farishta v. Tenet Healthsystem Hosps. Dallas, Inc., No. 02-06-00188-CV (Jan. 25, 2007) (McCoy, J., joined by Livingston and Gardner, JJ.).: Held: Expert medical report constituted a good faith effort to summarize the causal relationship between the failure to test for GBS and the alleged enumerated injuries suffered by child and the trial court could not have reasonably determined otherwise. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in striking the doctor's affidavit for failure to meet the Palacios tests. Furthermore, because the reports did not address the alleged and pled results of "illness" and "developmental impairment" of the breach of the standard of care, those results should be dismissed.
Cherry v. State, No. 02-06-00057-CR (Jan. 25, 2007) (Walker, J., joined by Livingston, J.; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion).: Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting the State's motion to revoke Appellant's community supervision when it found that the woman seated in the courtroom at the revocation hearing was the same person placed on community supervision in the underlying cause. At the hearing, the State called Appellant's former probation officer, who testified regarding Appellant's previous conviction for possession of marijuana. Consequently, when this testimony is viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling, it establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant at the revocation hearing was the same individual previously convicted.; Dissent: The trial court abused its discretion by granting the State's motion to revoke because there is no evidence that Appellant is the same person who was previously convicted of possession of marijuana and placed on community supervision.
Trantham v. Isaacks, No. 02-06-00184-CV (Jan. 25, 2007) (Holman, J., joined by Livingston and Dauphinot, JJ.).: Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding sanctions under chapter ten of the civil practice and remedies code, based on findings that Appellant's pleading was filed for an improper purpose and without basis in existing law. Appellant's declaratory judgment action was an improper vehicle for assessing his potential tort liability or Appellee's alleged criminal liability.
Meunster Hosp. Dist. v. Carter, No. 02-06-00301-CV (Jan. 25, 2007) (Walker, J., joined by Gardner and McCoy, JJ.).: Held: By filing breach of contract counterclaims against the doctors, the Hospital District waived its immunity from suit for the doctors' retaliatory discharge claims because the retaliatory discharge claims are germane to, connected with, and properly defensive to the Hospital District's breach of contract counterclaims. The Hospital District's waiver of immunity, however, extends only so far as the doctors' retaliatory discharge claims act as offsets to the total affirmative relief sought by the Hospital District in its breach of contract counterclaims.
In re M.K.R., No. 02-05-00240-CV (Jan. 25, 2007) (McCoy, J., joined by Holman, J.; Walker, J., concurs without opinion).: Held: The trial court abused its discretion by entering an arrearage judgment against Appellant that included amounts barred by res judicata. Appellee obtained her first arrearage judgment in 1994 in the form of an associate judge's report signed by the parties, their attorneys, the associate judge, and the district judge. Appellee later obtained a second arrearage judgment in 2005 for missed child support payments dating back to 1985. The 1994 report was a final judgment, so res judicata applied to the portion of Appellee's claim for arrearages representing amounts incurred prior to the 1994 report.
Arthur v. State, No. 02-06-00030-CR (Jan. 25, 2007) (Gardner, J., joined by Livingston and McCoy, JJ.).: Held: A field sobriety test conducted during a traffic stop on suspicion of DWI is not an unreasonable search or seizure and does not violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution or article I, section 9 of the Texas constitution. Nor was Appellant subject to custodial interrogation when she admitted, at the time of the traffic stop, to drinking alcohol earlier in the evening, and the investigating officer was not required to give the Miranda warnings at that time. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellant's motion to suppress.
In re Office of Attorney General, No. 02-06-00364-CV (Jan. 25, 2007) (orig. proceeding) (McCoy, J., joined by Dauphinot and Gardner, JJ.).: Held: The trial court abused its discretion by dismissing, on double jeopardy grounds, Relator's appeal to the district court of an associate judge's order in a child support enforcement action. Relator filed its notice of appeal with the district court within three days of the associate judge's order, so the associate judge's order did not become a final order. Without a final order, the child support obligor remained under the initial jeopardy that attached at the hearing before the associate judge, so the district court's review of the order was not a "second prosecution" for double jeopardy purposes.
Jones (Belenki) v. Krown, No. 02-06-00138-CV (Jan. 25, 2007) (Walker, J., joined by Cayce, C.J., and McCoy, J.).: Held: The evidence established that Appellee, an in-office independent contractor, was an employee within the meaning of probate code section 58b. Therefore, all devises and bequests to Appellee, who worked for the attorney who prepared the will at issue, were void.

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of January 22, 2007