Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

In re Hancock, No. 02-06-00431-CV (Feb. 1, 2007) (orig. proceeding) (Cayce, C.J., joined by Walker and McCoy, JJ.).: Held: The trial court's order shortening the term of Relator's community supervision to end in January 2006 was made as the result of judicial reasoning because it was the order the judge intended to enter, even though it was based on incorrect facts. Therefore, the order could not be corrected by a judgment nunc pro tunc. Further, the trial court could not change Relator's term of community supervision back to its original term after January 2006 because it had lost jurisdiction over the case.
Sanders v. City of Grapevine, No. 02-06-00208-CV (Feb. 1, 2007) (Livingston, J., joined by Dauphinot and Holman, JJ.).: Held: This court does not have jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal of dismissal of city officers and employees pursuant to section 101.106(e), the election of remedies provision, of the Texas Tort Claims Act. Trial court did not err by granting the City's plea to the jurisdiction on the Sanderses' fraud and negligence claims because, even though the Sanderses' alleged injury arose from a governmental function of the City, their first amended petition did not allege facts bringing their claims within the limited waiver of immunity set forth in the Tort Claims Act. However, because their claim for declaratory judgment, on its face, asked for the trial court to construe the rights of the parties under the City's tree ordinance, rather than declare that the Sanderses were entitled to damages based on the City's failure to enforce the ordinance, the trial court erred by determining that the City was immune as to their claim for declaratory relief, without first giving them an opportunity to replead.
Watson Co. v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., No. 02-06-00009-CV (Feb. 1, 2007) (McCoy, J., joined by Livingston and Gardner, JJ.).: Held: When an insurer sues in subrogation under a contract, it is entitled to all of the rights of its subrogee and likewise exposed to all of its liabilities. Therefore, the trial court erred by not enforcing a contractual provision which required the nonprevailing parties to reimburse the prevailing party its reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and all other reasonable costs, expenses, and charges associated with the defense of the suit. However, the trial court did not err by granting Appellant's verified motion to extend the postjudgment deadlines.
Poteet v. Sullivan et al., No. 02-05-00338-CV (Feb. 1, 2007) (op. on reh'g) (McCoy, J., joined by Livingston and Holman, JJ.).: Held: The trial court erred by granting summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity in favor of police officers who performed a "civil standby" for Appellant's ex-girlfriend while she moved out of Appellant's home because the evidence raised a fact issue as to whether the officers' actions went beyond keeping the peace into providing affirmative aid to the seizure of most of the contents of Appellant's home. The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment to the police captain and the town because Appellant did not come forward with evidence showing that the captain was personally involved in any violation of Appellant's constitutional rights or that the town's official policy was the moving force behind any such violation.

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of January 29, 2007