Second Court of Appeals | Case December

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of February 08, 2010

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.

Fernandez v. State, No. 02-08-00388-CR (Feb, 11, 2010) (Livingston, J., joined by McCoy, J.; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion). [Note: both opinions at the same link.]: Held: The trial court did not err by denying Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence related to his arrest for driving while intoxicated. The evidence that was presented in the trial court showed that there were three cars in Appellant’s immediate vicinity when he loudly squealed his pickup’s tires and fishtailed outside of his lane of traffic. When viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, this evidence established that the officer’s stop of Appellant’s pickup was justified because the stop was based on at least reasonable suspicion that Appellant had committed the offense of reckless driving.; Dissent: The officer had no reasonable suspicion that Appellant had violated the racing statute because there was no evidence of racing, and the officer had no reasonable suspicion that Appellant had violated the reckless driving statute because there was no evidence of endangerment. Consequently, the stop was not justified, and the trial court should have granted Appellant’s motion to suppress.

Lifeguard Benefit Servs., Inc. v. Direct Med. Network Solutions, Inc., No. 02-09-00267-CV (Feb. 11, 2010) (Meier, J., joined by Livingston and Walker, JJ.).: Held: The trial court abused its discretion by entering the temporary injunction in favor of Appellee CASA because CASA produced no evidence that it will suffer any irreparable injury if DirectMed fails to fully and properly respond to the CID. The injunction is unenforceable as to Appellant Amacore because there is no evidence that it has possession of any of the data and information that the temporary injunction order requires be turned over. The temporary injunction order is affirmed as modified.