Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of June 16, 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 (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

Gray v. Nash, No. 02-07-00351-CV (June 19, 2008) (Gardner, J., joined by Livingston and Holman, JJ.).: Held: The trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee and denying Appellant's motion for summary judgment. Appellant's ex-husband—who was married to Appellee at the time of his death—designated Appellant as beneficiary of part of his life insurance policy after he and Appellant divorced. Appellant had at all times thereafter an insurable interest in decedent's life, and family code section 9.301(a) did not terminate her right to the policy proceeds. Thus, Appellant is entitled to recover her share of the policy proceeds, and the trial court erred by ruling otherwise.

Wichita County & Wichita County Commissioners Court v. Bonnin, No. 02-07-00156-CV (June 19, 2008 (Livingston, J., joined by Gardner and Walker, JJ.). [Note: Opinion withdrawn October 2, 2008.]: Held: The trial court erred by granting Appellee's motion for summary judgment in his declaratory judgment suit because Appellants did not abuse their discretion by refusing to implement provisions of a petition related to the sheriff's department employees' salaries that were not submitted to voters on the ballot. Section 152.072 of the local government code mandates that the only issue that can be submitted to the voters of a county regarding the salaries of members of the sheriff's department is whether the proposed minimum salary should be adopted, precluding the submission of any other salary-related issue to the voters.

Garrett v. Berger, No. 02-08-00030-CV (June 19, 2008) (Per Curiam).: Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellant's motion for a temporary injunction, which requested that he be removed from his current job assignment in the jail kitchen. Because Appellant did not allege that he had suffered any injury from his work assignment, he was not entitled to a temporary injunction.