Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of December 05, 2011

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.

Town of Flower Mound v. Rembert Enters. Inc., No. 02-10-00408-CV (Dec. 8, 2011) (Gardner, J., joined by Walker and McCoy, JJ.). [Note: Opinion & Judgment withdrawn March 1, 2012.]: Held: The trial court did not err by denying, in part, Appellant's plea to the jurisdiction because local government code section 271.152 waives Appellant's immunity from suit with regard to the parties' contract because the contract is a contract for the provision of services to Appellant within the meaning of that statute. However, the trial court erred by denying, in part, Appellant's plea to the jurisdiction concerning Appellee's claim for declaratory relief. The trial court also erred by granting Appellant's plea to the jurisdiction as to Appellee's alternative claim for inverse condemnation.

James v. State, No. 02-10-00165-CR (Dec. 8, 2011) (McCoy, J., joined by Charles Bleil (Senior Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment); Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion). [Note: Both opinions are at the same link in one document.]: Held: The court need not address the trial court's exclusion of evidence on hearsay grounds because Appellant does not challenge the trial court's exclusion of the same evidence on relevance grounds.; Dissent: I would address the merits of Appellant's hearsay complaint because (1) Appellant clearly explains the relevance and importance of the excluded evidence and (2) the record makes clear that the trial court based its ruling on hearsay, not relevance.