Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of February 16, 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.

Boenig v. StarnAir, Inc., No. 02-08-00175-CV (Feb. 19, 2009) (Holman, J. (Senior Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment), joined by Gardner and Walker, JJ.).: Held: A claimant is not time-barred from joining in a lawsuit a person designated as a responsible third party pursuant to civil practice and remedies code section 33.004 when the claimant’s cause of action against the designated responsible third party is of the type implicated by civil practice and remedies code section 16.009 and the ten-year deadline set forth in section 16.009(a) for asserting such a claim has expired.

Benish v. Grottie, No. 02-08-00148-CV (Feb. 19, 2009) (Walker, J., joined by Gardner, J. and Holman, J. (Senior Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment)).: Held: Looking at the plain language of civil practice and remedies code section 74.153 as well as the rules of statutory construction, the standard of proof required at trial that is set forth in section 74.153 is not applicable to the requirements of an expert report as defined in section 74.351(r)(6). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that Dr. Kennedy was qualified to offer causation opinions, that both Dr. Kennedy’s and Nurse Cleveland’s reports provide a fair summary of their opinions as to the applicable standards of care and the manner in which the care rendered by the physician or health care provider failed to meet the standards, and that Dr. Kennedy’s report provides a fair summary of the causal relationship between the health care providers’ failure to meet the standards of care and the injury, harm, or damages claimed.

Ex parte Karlson, Nos. 02-08-00366-CR, 02-08-00367-CR, 02-08-00368-CR, 02-08-00369-CR, 02-08-00370-CR, 02-08-00371-CR (Feb. 19, 2009) (Livingston, J., joined by Gardner and Walker, JJ.).: Held: This court does not have jurisdiction over Appellant’s appeals from the trial court’s denial of his two habeas corpus applications relating to his misdemeanor cases in which prosecution was barred under section 12.45 of the penal code, because he is not confined or restrained by the result of those cases. In the remaining four cases, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellant’s habeas corpus applications when it resolved conflicting evidence regarding ineffective assistance of Appellant’s trial counsel.

Cascott, L.L.C. v. City of Arlington, Nos. 02-08-00042-CV; 02-08-00044-CV; 02-08-00046-CV; 02-08-00106-CV; 02-08-00107-CV; 02-08-00108-CV; 02-08-00109-CV; 02-08-00110-CV; 02-08-00111-CV; 02-08-00113-CV; 02-08-00134-CV; 02-08-00135-CV; 02-08-00136-CV; 02-08-00137-CV; 02-08-00138-CV; 02-08-00139-CV; 02-08-00149-CV (Feb. 19, 2009) (Cayce, C.J., joined by Gardner and McCoy, JJ.).: Held: The City of Arlington condemned the properties in this consolidated appeal for a public purpose: the construction of a stadium to be leased by the City to the Dallas Cowboys.