Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of August 13, 2012

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.

Brennan v. City of Willow Park, Tex. , No. 02-11-00265-CV (Aug. 16, 2012) (Walker, J., joined by Livingston, C.J., and McCoy, J.) (op. on reh'g).: Held: The trial court erred when it determined that it lacked jurisdiction over Appellants' claims for declaratory judgment, for injunctive relief, and for mandamus relief against all Appellees; thus, the trial court erred by granting Appellees' pleas to the jurisdiction.

Jennings v. WallBuilder Presentations, Inc., No. 02-12-00047-CV (Aug. 16, 2012) (Walker, J., joined by Dauphinot and Gardner, JJ.).: Held: Because we do not possess jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal from the trial court's order denying Appellants' motion to dismiss filed pursuant to the Texas Citizens' Participation Act (TCPA) set forth in chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code when the order was signed timely after a hearing, we dismiss this appeal.

Schragin v. State, No. 02-10-00510-CR (Aug. 16, 2012) (Gardner, J., joined by Livingston, C.J., and Gabriel, J.).: Held: Sufficient evidence supports Appellant's felony conviction for driving while intoxicated. Also, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling Appellant's objection to an allegedly improper reference to his post-arrest silence.

State v. Howard, No. 02-11-00260-CR (Aug. 16, 2012) (Gardner, J., joined by Livingston, C.J., and Meier, J.).: Held: Because Appellee was not in custody at the time the officer gratuitously informed him of his Miranda rights, the officer was not required to scrupulously honor Appellee's purported invocation of his right to counsel.