Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of October 6, 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.

Mendiola v. State, No. 02-07-00387-CR (Oct. 9, 2008) (Dauphinot, J., joined by Livingston and McCoy, JJ.).: Held: The pretrial photograph array was impermissibly suggestive because Appellant's photograph was both larger and darker than the other photographs in the array, calling attention to Appellant's photograph. But the array did not give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, given that the complainant had met Appellant prior to the day of the offense, had spent about two hours with him during the offense, and unequivocally identified Appellant as his assailant at trial.

Moore v. Gatica, No. 02-06-00442-CV (Oct. 9, 2008) (Livingston, J., joined by Dauphinot and Holman, JJ.) (op. on remand).: Held: The trial court did not err by denying Appellant's motion to dismiss Appellee's health care liability claim under section 74.351 of the civil practice and remedies code because the expert report submitted by Appellee satisfied the requirements of section 74.351 and the physician who submitted the report was properly qualified under section 74.401 of that code.

Doe v. Tarrant County Dist. Attorney's Office, No. 02-07-00012-CV (Oct. 9, 2008) (Cayce, C.J., joined by Livingston and Dauphinot, JJ.).: Held: The trial court did not err by denying Appellant's petition for mandamus seeking to require Appellee to disclose information pursuant to an open records request. Because Appellee did not timely seek an Attorney General opinion on its intent to withhold certain documents, Appellee was required under the Public Information Act to establish that an exception to disclosure applied and that Appellee had a “compelling reason” to withhold the documents. The trial court correctly concluded that Appellee established compelling reasons to withhold the documents. Some were withheld because Appellee was required by statute to maintain confidentiality of the documents or risk criminal prosecution. Others were withheld because they implicated the constitutionally protected privacy interests of third parties.

Glencoe Capital Partners II, L.P. v. Gernsbacher, No. 02-08-00009-CV (Oct. 9, 2008) (Gardner, J., joined by Walker and McCoy, JJ.).: Held: Telephonic board meetings between resident and nonresident board members, occurring at regular intervals over several years, were sufficient to establish minimum contacts between Texas and nonresident defendants and to subject them to specific jurisdiction in Texas.