Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of June 08, 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.

Kohout v. City of Fort Worth,   No. 02-08-00102-CV    (June 11, 2009)   (Dauphinot, J., joined by Livingston, J.).

Held:   Appellant does not have standing to assert her claim that she was denied due process, equal protection, and the right to petition her government by the City of Fort Worth when the City did not notify her that a proposed gas well would be a “high impact gas well” and that, accordingly, the permit applicant had to obtain a waiver from nearby property owners. The City’s ordinance does not require notice to the public that waivers will be obtained, only that they have already been obtained and filed in the public records. Furthermore, Appellant failed to show that she was treated differently than a similarly situated party. Thus, Appellant failed to show that she suffered any particularized injury.

Jenkins v. State & County Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,   No. 02-08-00279-CV    (June 11, 2009)   (Gardner, J., joined by Walker and Meier, JJ.).

Held:   Auto liability insurer had no liability for default judgment rendered against additional insured after service by publication because additional insured never notified insurer of the suit or forwarded suit papers as required by the policy, and the insurer was prejudiced by the insured’s failure to comply with the policy requirements, even though the insurer had actual knowledge of the suit and defended other insureds in the same litigation.

York v. State,   No. 02-08-00118-CV    (June 11, 2009)   (Livingston, J., joined by Walker, J.; Cayce, C.J., dissents without opinion). [Note: This opinion was withdrawn September 24, 2009]

Held:   The trial court properly dismissed York’s declaratory judgment claims for want of jurisdiction because even though a state court has subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether the bankruptcy code’s automatic stay applies to an action, in this collateral attack on an allegedly void judgment, there was no evidence on the face of the record showing that the stay applied. However, because York alleged facts supporting a Texas constitutional takings claim, the trial court erred by dismissing that cause of action for want of jurisdiction.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «