Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of August 27, 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.

Newsome v. State, No. 02-06-00374-CR (Aug. 31, 2007) (Dauphinot, J., joined by Cayce, C.J., and McCoy, J.).: Held: The DeGarmo doctrine does not bar issues challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting conviction.
Jones v. Citibank, No. 02-06-00440-CV (Aug. 31, 2007) (Livingston, Holman, and Gardner, JJ.).: Held: Trial court did not err by granting summary judgment for Citibank, who filed suit against Jones to recover an outstanding credit card balance, because Jones=s deemed admissions and Citibank=s summary judgment evidence proved as a matter of law---under either federal, Texas, or South Dakota law---that Jones entered into an agreement with Citibank, had a credit card account with Citibank, used the card to make purchases, and failed to pay her outstanding balance. Additionally, Jones waived her right to arbitrate the dispute by substantially invoking the litigation process to Citibank=s detriment before requesting arbitration.
FOX v. Abdel-Hafiz, No. 02-06-00353-CV (Aug. 31, 2007) (Holman, J., joined by Cayce, C.J., and Gardner, J.).: Held: In this interlocutory appeal in a defamation action brought by Appellee, an FBI special agent, there was no evidence of actual malice by Appellants (media defendants) involving statements made by them about Appellee. Summary judgment is rendered that Appellee take nothing on his defamation claims.
Abdel-Hafiz v. ABC, No. 02-06-00244-CV (Aug. 31, 2007) (Holman, J., joined by Cayce, C.J., and Gardner, J.).: Held: There was no evidence of actual malice by Appellees (media defendants) involving alleged defamatory statements made by them about Appellant, an FBI special agent. Also, the trial court properly granted special appearances for two individual nonresident media defendants because the court did not have either specific or general jurisdiction over them.