Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of January 5, 2009

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.

In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Lewisville Subsidiary, L.P., No. 02-08-00381-CV (Jan. 8, 2009) (Walker, J., joined by Gardner, J., and Holman, J. (Senior Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment)).: Held: The trial court abused its discretion by refusing to enforce a prelitigation contractual jury waiver contained in a lease executed by the parties because Medical Center—as the party seeking to enforce the contractual jury waiver—met its evidentiary burden to offer prima facie evidence rebutting the presumption that the waiver was not knowingly and voluntarily made and because CenterPlace did not offer any evidence that it did not knowingly and voluntarily agree to the contractual jury waiver in the lease.

Heard v. State, No. 02-07-00436-CR (Jan. 8, 2009) (Walker, J., joined by Livingston and Dauphinot, JJ.).: Held: The evidence is legally sufficient to support Heard’s conviction for capital murder because a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the evidence presented at trial, that Heard knew that the victim was a peace officer when Heard shot him.

AMX Enters., L.L.P. v. Master Realty Corp., No. 02-07-00239-CV (Jan. 8, 2009) (Gardner, J., joined by Walker, J., and Holman, J. (Senior Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment)). [Note: This opinion was withdrawn April 9th, 2009.]: Held: Statutory interest awarded to a prevailing claimant under the Prompt Payment to Contractors Act is not subject to tolling for periods of litigation delay allegedly caused by the claimant; a prevailing claimant may not recover both statutory interest under the Act and common-law prejudgment interest; and in-house counsel’s attorney’s fees should be calculated at the market rate for similar services, not by the “cost-plus” method.