Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of February 23, 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 M.R.J.M., No. 02-05-00392-CV (Feb. 26, 2009) (McCoy, J., joined by Gardner and Walker, JJ.) (op. on reh’g).: Held: On the unusual facts and procedural history of this case, Appellant, an indigent father, was entitled to a complete record of the underlying proceedings and to appeal from the trial court’s judgment terminating his parental rights. However, the evidence was factually sufficient to support termination of his parental rights.

In re Pannell, No. 02-08-00301-CV (Feb. 25, 2009) (Livingston, J., joined by Dauphinot and Walker, J.J.) (orig. proceeding).: Held: A trial court’s order under Texas Government Code section 501.014(e) and (f) requiring TDCJ to withdraw from an inmate’s trust account any amount the trial court has ordered the inmate to pay is a final and appealable order. Because Relator had several adequate appellate remedies of which to avail himself in contesting the orders at issue, he is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Frequent Flyer Depot, Inc. v. Am. Airlines, No. 02-08-00386-CV (Feb. 26, 2009) (Livingston, J., joined by Dauphinot and McCoy, JJ.).: Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by issuing a temporary injunction prohibiting Frequent Flyer Depot and its principals from engaging in the brokering, purchase, sale, bartering, and solicitation of American Airlines AAdvantage® rewards points. American’s suit is not pre-empted by the Airlines Deregulation Act; the injunction preserves the status quo; the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants’ motion for continuance because it was not supported by affidavit; the User Agreement between American and its AAdvantage® program participants does not fail for lack of mutuality; American offered sufficient evidence of intangible harm to its business resulting from appellants’ activities such that damages will not fully compensate it for its injuries; and American’s request for a temporary injunction does not fail for reasons of equity.

Haddock v. Quinn, No. 02-06-00472-CV AND In re Haddock, No. 02-07-00048-CV (Feb. 26, 2009) (Gardner, J., joined by Dixon W. Holman, J. (Senior Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment); Walker, J., concurs without opinion).: Held: Absent clear and unmistakable evidence of agreement to delegate questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator, the trial court had jurisdiction to determine whether Appellant/Relator waived his right to compel arbitration by engaging in prior litigation conduct inconsistent with arbitration. By previously filing and litigating a lawsuit that concerned the same claims Appellant/Relator now seeks to arbitrate, he substantially invoked the litigation process to the prejudice of Appellees/Real Parties in Interest and waived his right to compel arbitration; thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by staying arbitration.