Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of April 27, 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.

Watson v. Watson,   No. 02-08-00365-CV    (Apr. 30, 2009)   (Gardner, J., joined by Cayce, C.J., and McCoy, J.).

Held:   Technically, there can be no default judgment in a divorce action; thus, even when a respondent fails to answer a petition for divorce or fails to appear for trial, the petitioner must present evidence sufficient to support claims for separate property, spousal maintenance, and attorney’s fees.

Gordon & Doner, P.A. v. Joros,   No. 02-08-00120-CV    (Apr. 30, 2009)   (Gardner, J., joined by Cayce, C.J., and Walker, J.).

Held:    The trial court erred by denying Appellant’s special appearance. Appellant, a Florida law firm, entered into an attorney-client relationship with Appellee, a Florida resident, and referred Appellee’s claims to a Texas law firm, which was to do the majority of the work on the claims and file them in New York. Appellant had no other relevant contact with Texas. Appellee sued Appellant and the Texas law firm in Texas for legal malpractice. The trial court erred by denying Appellant’s special appearance because Appellant lacked sufficient contacts with Texas to support the exercise of specific jurisdiction.

Scoresby v. Santillan,   No. 02-08-00357-CV    (Apr. 30, 2009)   (Meier, J., joined by Dauphinot and Gardner, JJ.).

Held:    No supreme court opinion holds that a timely served expert report containing a narrative that fails to include any expert opinion on the standard of care, breach, or causation is tantamount to no report at all and thus ineligible for any civil practice and remedies code section 74.351(c) extension. Until a majority of the supreme court so holds, such a determination by this court would necessarily constitute a modification to the absent or deficient expert report limitation set forth in Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 S.W.3d 316 (Tex. 2007), which would be improper because we are bound as an intermediate appellate court by supreme court precedent. The appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «