Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of February 4, 2008

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.

In re M.J.G., No. 2-07-105-CV (Feb. 7, 2008) (McCoy, J., joined by Livingston and Dauphinot, JJ.).: Held: Grandparents did not show standing to intervene in the divorce/custody suit between the parents of their grandchildren because (1) they did not establish general standing to maintain an original suit affecting the parent-child relationship merely by alleging that the children had lived, along with the parents, "off and on" in the grandparents' home since birth; (2) they did not establish grandparent standing to maintain an original suit because they did not show that the children's present circumstances significantly impaired the children's physical health or emotional development; and (3) they did not meet the family code's relaxed standing requirements for grandparent intervention because they did not show that appointment of either or both parents as managing conservators would significantly impair the children's physical health or emotional development.

Richmond Condominiums v. Skipworth Commercial Plumbing, Inc., No. 2-05-401-CV (Feb. 7, 2008) (op. on reh'g) (McCoy, J., joined by Livingston, J.; Walker, J., concurs without opinion).: Held: The trial court abused its discretion by failing to sanction Appellee's counsel for directly contacting the Richmond joint venturers without the consent of their lawyers. This abuse of discretion is not reversible error, however, because the record did not show that Appellee was aware of its counsel's actions, so an appropriate sanction for the unethical conduct of Appellee's counsel could not have been assessed against Appellee itself and could not have affected the evidence presented at trial.

Rodriguez v. State, No. 2-05-021-CR (Feb. 7, 2008) (mem. op. on remand) (Holman, J., joined by Livingston and Dauphinot, JJ.).: Held: The trial court did not err by denying Appellant's motion to suppress evidence because Appellant was not illegally or unreasonably seized when officers secured the house and waited for the search warrant and because officers conducted the subsequent search pursuant to a valid warrant. The trial court also did not err by denying Appellant's motion to suppress his written statement because the trial court's conclusion that Appellant gave his statement freely and voluntarily is supported by the record.