Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of May 04, 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.

Farlow v. Harris Methodist Fort Worth Hosp.,   No. 02-07-00423-CV    (May 7, 2009)   (Livingston, J., joined by Cayce, C.J., and Gardner, J.).

Held:    The trial court did not err by granting partial summary judgment on Appellants’ respondeat superior and gross negligence claims against Appellees; Appellants failed to raise a fact issue as to whether, despite a contract stating that the on-call doctor who treated Lee Farlow was an independent contractor, the hospital exercised such a right of control over the doctor that he was in reality the hospital’s employee. Additionally, the trial court did not err by directing a verdict for Appellees on Appellants’ ostensible agency claim.

Trammell v. State,   No. 02-07-00372-CR    (May 7, 2009)   (Livingston, J.; Gardner, J., concurs without opinion; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion).  [Note: Both opinions are at the same link in one document.]

Held:   The trial court did not err by refusing Appellant’s request for an instruction to the jury on self-defense because Appellant did not present any evidence at trial to justify such an instruction under the applicable statutory standards. Also, the trial court did not violate Appellant’s constitutional rights by prohibiting pro bono counsel to sit alongside his appointed counsel at the counsel table because (1) an indigent defendant does not have the right of counsel of his own choosing, and (2) Appellant’s rights were protected when he gained effective assistance from his appointed counsel.

Dissent:    The trial court violated Appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by refusing to allow volunteer counsel to assist appointed counsel based solely on volunteer counsel’s absence from the appointment wheel.

Perdue, Brackett, Flores, Utt & Burns, a Joint Venture v. Linebarger, Goggin, Blair, Sampson, & Meeks, L.L.P.,   No. 02-08-00041-CV    (May 7, 2009)   (Gardner, J., joined by Cayce, C.J., and William Brigham, J. (Senior Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment)).

Held:   Appellees’ allegedly defamatory statements to city council about Appellants’ performance under a city contract were absolutely privileged under the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity. The city council wields quasi-judicial power, and the proceeding in connection with which Appellees made the statements—the council’s deliberations on whether to renew Appellants’ contract—was a quasi-judicial proceeding. Thus, the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment on the basis of absolute immunity.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «