Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of March 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.

Hirsch v. State,    No. 02-08-00121-CR    (Mar. 19, 2009)   (Livingston, J., joined by Cayce, C.J., and Gardner, J.).

Held:    The trial court properly included a provision in its judgment requiring appellant to register as a sex offender upon his convictions for online solicitation of a minor. Although the legislature passed two bills in its 2005 regular legislative session amending the “Reportable conviction or adjudication” section of the sex offender registration statute, and although only one of these bills referred to the online solicitation of a minor offense, the bills are not irreconcilable under section 311.025 of the government code, and both bills are therefore effective.

Clewis v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am.,    No. 02-08-00187-CV    (Mar. 19, 2009)   (Livingston, J., joined by Cayce, C.J., and Walker, J.).

Held:    In this workers’ compensation case, the judgment signed by the trial court in 2000 is not void; thus, the trial court’s plenary power over that judgment has expired and the court has no jurisdiction to consider an appeal related to the trial court’s denial of a motion to vacate the judgment. The statutory and administrative provisions requiring notice of workers’ compensation judgments to the Division of Workers’ Compensation of the Texas Department of Insurance only apply to judgments resulting from an agreement, settlement, or default, rather than judgments entered after the completion of adversarial proceedings.

In re R.R.,    No. 02-08-00061-CV    (Mar. 19, 2009)    (Walker, J., joined by Gardner and McCoy, JJ.).

Held:    Because, according to published guidelines that we are to give great weight to, the trial court here had reason to know that Indian children were involved, specific statutory notices containing specific statutorily defined information were required to be sent to specific individuals. Although the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services sent out notices, those notices did not comply with the statutory requisites. Accordingly, we abate this appeal so that proper notice can be provided to the proper individuals, and the trial court shall thereafter conduct a hearing to determine whether the children are Indian children under the Indian Child Welfare Act.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «