Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of March 26, 2007

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 can be accessed by clicking the cause number then clicking View HTML Version of Opinion.

Stewart v. State, No. 02-06-00255-CR (Mar. 29, 2007) (McCoy, J., joined by Holman and Gardner, JJ.).: Held: Under the plain language of Texas Rule of Evidence 107, when a portion of a document is read into evidence, then other portions or other writings may only be read into evidence. Thus, if one party simply reads from a document, the party does not open the door for the opposing party to admit the document into evidence.
Horsley-Layman v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. d/b/a Huguley Mem‘l Med. Ctr., Kalman S. Narayan, M.D., & Fernando S.M. Angeles, M.D., No. 02-06-00066-CV (Mar. 29, 2007) (Livingston, J., joined by Cayce, C.J.; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion).: Held: Appellant filed a medical malpractice suit against appellees while she was in the middle of Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Under federal bankruptcy law, debtors must disclose pending causes of action by amending their schedules. Here, even though Appellant noted the malpractice claim on at least two other filings with the bankruptcy court, she had a duty to amend her schedules but failed to do so. By omitting this claim from her schedules, Appellant represented to her creditors that it did not exist. Because Appellant asserted inconsistent positions in her bankruptcy and malpractice cases, she was precluded from pursuing the latter claim. Therefore, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees based on judicial estoppel.; Dissent: The trial court erred by granting summary judgment on the ground that Appellant's failure to amend the schedule amounted to a representation that the otherwise disclosed claim did not exist.
Astoria Indus. of Iowa, Inc. v. SNF, Inc. d/b/a Brand FX Body Co., No. 02-05-00315-CV (Mar. 29, 2007) (op. on reh'g) (Cayce, C.J., joined by Livingston and McCoy, JJ.).: Held: Only the portion of the trial court's order denying summary judgment on Brand FX's business disparagement, false advertising, and tortious interference claims—the only claims that Astoria defended on free speech grounds—is appealable by interlocutory appeal under section 51.014(a)(6). Our interlocutory appellate jurisdiction does not extend to the part of the trial court's order disposing of claims against which Astoria did not assert free speech as a defense.; The trial court improperly denied Astoria a no-evidence summary judgment on Brand FX's business disparagement claim because Brand FX did not produce any evidence of damages. The trial court properly denied summary judgment on Brand FX's false advertising and tortious interference claims.
Goodson v. State, No. 02-06-00197-CR (Mar. 29, 2007) (Gardner, J., joined by Livingston and Holman, JJ.).: Held: The trial court had no duty to inform Appellant that the appellate mandate had issued in her appeal, and the terms of her community supervision commenced when the trial court clerk received the appellate mandate.