Fortunato Pedro Benavides

In Wavell v. Roberts, appellant Cage Wavell sued appellee Aubrey Roberts for negligence and civil conspiracy, alleging that Roberts participated in a scheme connected to Margaret Covington's efforts to harm Wavell through assault or planting drugs, while Roberts represented Covington in related federal criminal proceedings. The trial court granted summary judgment for Roberts after other defendants had been dismissed or settled. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that Roberts' affidavits and deposition testimony, along with other evidence, established as a matter of law that Roberts committed no overt acts in furtherance of any conspiracy and caused no damages to Wavell. Wavell's opposing affidavit was deemed conclusory and insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact, and the court also upheld the denial of a continuance for additional discovery.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a civil forfeiture action by the State of Texas seeking to seize $17,000 in currency from Santiago Cantu under the Texas Controlled Substances Act, alleging the money was linked to illegal drug activities. Cantu moved for summary judgment, arguing the State lacked evidence connecting the money to any illegal conduct. The trial court granted the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a defendant moving for summary judgment must affirmatively negate an element of the plaintiff's claim rather than merely asserting that the plaintiff has insufficient evidence at that stage. The court reasoned that without such affirmative proof, the State was not required to produce evidence supporting forfeiture at the summary judgment phase. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Texstar North America, Inc. and Ladd Petroleum Corporation over a joint operating agreement for an oil and gas well on the Zalman tract. Texstar claimed that Ladd breached the agreement and an implied duty of cooperation by refusing to consent to a fracture stimulation procedure on the well, seeking injunctions, declaratory judgment, and damages, while Ladd counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to Ladd on Texstar's claims and to Texstar on Ladd's counterclaim, which the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the agreement's terms governed the parties' non-consent rights to rework operations, no breach occurred, and there was no justiciable controversy regarding future proposals.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involves an attorney suing a newspaper and its employees for publishing articles about judicial proceedings connected to an assault on him by his former lover, claiming invasion of privacy, emotional distress, and related torts. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, which the appellate court mostly affirmed. The court reasoned that the First Amendment protects the accurate reporting of public judicial proceedings from civil liability under privacy or other tort theories. However, it reversed the judgment as to two individual defendants because they failed to provide proper notice of the summary judgment hearing to the plaintiff.

free speechtorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved an appeal by H.E. Butt Grocery Co. from a no-answer default judgment in favor of Bay, Inc. and related companies for approximately $550,000 plus attorney fees, interest, and foreclosure on liens arising from construction work at a shopping center. The court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, holding that the trial court's judgment was not final. Absent a trial on the merits, default judgments carry no presumption of finality and must dispose of all parties and issues while being sufficiently certain for enforcement by a clerk without needing additional facts. The judgment's reference to prejudgment interest "as provided by the laws of Texas" was ambiguous because it did not specify whether the rate came from a statute setting six percent interest on ascertainable accounts or from common-law equitable principles applying a market rate, leaving the exact amount unascertainable from the judgment's terms.

procedure

In Graham v. Pazos De La Torre, appellants challenged a trial court judgment that voided a foreclosure sale of real property and a subsequent sale to appellee Pazos. The property owner, Arsing, had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy the day before the scheduled foreclosure, triggering an automatic stay under federal bankruptcy law that barred enforcement actions against estate assets. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the foreclosure and conveyance were void because the stay deprived the state court of jurisdiction and preempted state law remedies, regardless of whether the parties received notice of the bankruptcy filing. A later bankruptcy court order retroactively annulling the stay did not alter the outcome in this suit between the creditor and the third-party purchaser, as Pazos received no valid title or consideration.

propertyprocedurefederal power

This case involved Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, a workers' compensation insurer, filing a cross-action against its agent Walker County Agency for contribution, indemnity, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims after Hartford settled lawsuits stemming from an injured subcontractor's employee. The underlying suits included a workers' compensation claim and a bad-faith claim against Hartford, which settled in Harris County, while a related assigned-claims suit proceeded in Nueces County. Walker County moved for summary judgment, arguing that Hartford could not recover from a joint tortfeasor under Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Jinkins and lacked a basis for statutory indemnity under the DTPA. The court affirmed summary judgment against Hartford on its contribution, statutory indemnity, and common-law indemnity claims for the bad-faith settlement because there was no finding of liability against Walker County and the claims did not arise from joint tortfeasor status, but reversed and remanded on the remaining claims arising from the principal-agent relationship.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved Sylvester Theodore Burns, Jr., who was convicted by a jury of involuntary manslaughter after driving while intoxicated and causing a one-car accident that killed passenger Mark Perez, resulting in a seven-year prison sentence. Burns appealed on multiple grounds, including challenges to the indictment's constitutionality, the state's alleged withholding of exculpatory evidence from auto engineers, and the admission of blood sample results taken under statutory authority despite his resistance. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that Burns lacked standing to challenge probation provisions, that no exculpatory evidence was withheld and chain of custody was sufficient, and that the blood sample was properly obtained and analyzed without violating constitutional rights.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved James Barnhouse suing Petrolite Corporation and its Retirement Plan over alleged oral promises made in 1959 regarding enhanced retirement benefit credits for overseas work and benefit calculations based on reported income; Barnhouse claimed fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and related violations after his 1971 departure from the company. A jury awarded him damages and a declaratory judgment for monthly payments, but the court reversed the trial judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment for the defendants. The court held that ERISA preempted the state-law claims because the formal denial of benefits occurred after ERISA's effective date, even though some underlying acts predated it, and that ERISA's requirement for written plan documents barred enforcement of the oral representations as impermissible modifications. The decision emphasized ERISA's preemption clause and its preference for written agreements to maintain plan stability.

labor & employmentfederal power

Ciro Moran sued State Farm under his auto insurance policy for uninsured motorist benefits after an accident that occurred while his truck was being towed by his uninsured nephew, alleging the nephew's negligence caused his injuries; he also claimed breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing plus violations of the DTPA. The trial court entered judgment for Moran based on a jury verdict, awarding policy limits plus mental anguish and punitive damages. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that State Farm had a reasonable basis to deny the claim because evidence indicated the accident may have resulted from Moran's own negligence in controlling the tow chain or from a third vehicle, and that there was no evidence of any specific misrepresentation by State Farm at the time of policy purchase to support the DTPA claims.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved a dispute over the proper price United Gas Pipe Line Company owed Mueller Engineering Corporation for natural gas delivered under a 1980 purchase contract from January through June 1985, after federal deregulation ended the applicability of the Area Rate pricing provision. The trial court granted summary judgment to Mueller for $173,085.91 plus interest on the breach-of-contract claim. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the contract's pricing mechanism in Article IV became ambiguous once the Area Rate ceased to exist, because Section 1(ii) required multiplying the prior month's base price by an inflation factor without specifying how to establish that base price when only the Area Rate had been paid previously. The court reasoned that the contract lacked any provision converting the former Area Rate into a base price or otherwise resolving the calculation after deregulation, creating a fact issue that precluded summary judgment.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case involved an appeal by Torres after a jury convicted him of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced him to 42 years in prison based on the victim's testimony that she was threatened with a gun and forced into sexual intercourse at the appellant's apartment. Torres raised multiple points of error challenging the trial court's jury instructions on mental states like intentionally and knowingly, the admission of hearsay statements made by the victim to a nurse and to a witness named Jose Luis, and the prosecutor's closing argument. The court affirmed the conviction, reasoning that the objections to the jury charge were contradictory and not preserved for review, that the nurse's testimony was admissible under the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment, that Luis's testimony qualified as an excited utterance, and that the remaining claims did not show reversible error.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by Marco Ardila against Antonio Saavedra for damages from an automobile accident that occurred on May 20, 1987. The trial court granted summary judgment to Saavedra on the grounds that the two-year statute of limitations had expired since the suit was filed over two years later. Ardila appealed, arguing that Saavedra's absences from the state, including trips to Mexico, tolled the limitations period under Texas law. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the absences were sufficient to toll the statute, based on deposition testimony about the frequency of trips.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned whether evidence of cocaine possession found during a pat-down search should be suppressed, where the arresting officer acted on an outstanding municipal warrant that had not been recalled even though the defendant had already served time to satisfy the underlying fines. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, the defendant pleaded nolo contendere, and he was convicted and given probation. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the officers acted in objective good faith reliance on facially valid warrants issued by a neutral magistrate and supported by probable cause, so the evidence was admissible under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule even though the warrants were later found to be invalid due to administrative negligence. The court rejected the argument that it must examine the conduct of every agency involved and instead focused on the reasonableness of the arresting officers' actions.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal by writ of error challenging a no-answer default judgment against Nueces County Housing Assistance, Inc. (NCHA) in favor of M & M Resources Corp. for claims of breach of contract, libel, and tortious interference with contract. The court reversed and remanded the judgment, holding that service of process was defective because the citation was served only on the corporation's chairman without evidence in the trial record that he was the president, a vice-president, the registered agent, or a member of a committee performing the chief executive function as required by statute for nonprofit corporations. The core reasoning was that default judgments require strict compliance with citation rules, there are no presumptions of valid service on writ of error review, and the sufficiency of service must be determined solely from the record before the trial court at the time the judgment was rendered, not from later-filed documents or judicial admissions.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved the appeal of Richard Ordonez's conviction for deadly assault on a parole officer from the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, where a jury found him guilty after he attacked his supervising officer with a wooden club during a home visit, causing fractures, nerve damage, and other permanent injuries; the jury also found two prior felony convictions true and imposed a life sentence. Ordonez challenged the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the use of a deadly weapon and the infliction of serious bodily injury, as well as the effectiveness of his trial counsel for failing to call certain witnesses or cross-examine the victim. The court applied the standard of reviewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determined that a rational jury could find the essential elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt, including that the club was capable of causing death or serious injury and that the victim's injuries met the statutory definition of serious bodily injury. On the ineffective assistance claim, the court applied the Strickland test, found that counsel's performance met objective standards of reasonableness under the totality of the representation, and concluded there was no reasonable probability of a different outcome. The appellate court therefore affirmed the trial court's judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Steven Hanau's efforts to remove Dorris Hanau as independent executrix of Robert Hanau's estate and to appoint himself as successor executor, citing alleged fiduciary breaches, failure to distribute separate property as required by prior court mandates, and refusal to provide a proper accounting. The trial court denied the application after Dorris filed a final account on the day of trial, and the appellate court affirmed. The core reasoning was that a verified final account meeting the requirements of Texas Probate Code § 151(a) automatically closed the independent administration and ended the executrix's authority, leaving no pending proceeding for the court to exercise jurisdiction over removal or successor appointment and rendering those requests moot; any claims of mismanagement could be pursued separately in a new suit.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned homeowners who sued their insurer after it denied a claim for fire damage to their house, alleging breach of the insurance contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The trial court entered judgment for the homeowners based on jury findings awarding over $333,000 in damages, but the insurer appealed the non-contract claims, challenging evidentiary sufficiency, jury instructions, and the lack of required pre-suit notice under the DTPA. The appellate court held that the homeowners neither pled nor proved the mandatory DTPA notice, which constituted reversible error requiring reversal of those claims, while affirming the contract award (which was not appealed) after reforming the judgment. The court also addressed the good faith claim, with a dissent arguing that the jury charge and evidence were insufficient to support bad faith liability given the information available to the insurer at the time of denial.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

Stuart Tucker, a former employee of Shearson Lehman Brothers, sued the firm for fraud, breach of contract, and slander after his termination for violating company policy, claiming a senior vice president made false statements to clients that Tucker would lose his broker license, faced SEC trouble, and would never work as a broker again. The trial court directed a verdict against Tucker on all claims except slander, and a jury found the statements false, published, slanderous, and made with malice, awarding damages for reputation harm, lost earnings, mental anguish, and exemplary damages. On appeal, Shearson challenged the denial of its motion to compel arbitration under the employment agreement, the sufficiency of evidence for slander and malice, evidentiary rulings, and the damages award. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that Shearson failed to present evidence showing the dispute was referable to arbitration under the contract's terms requiring specific organizational rules, and that the evidence supported the jury's findings on slander and malice. The employee's cross-point regarding individual liability was waived.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved Mary Ellen Walker suing Thomas G. Sharpe, Jr., an attorney, for breach of contract and related claims after Sharpe purchased her home for $85,000, assumed the mortgage, but allegedly failed to pay the remaining balance as agreed. Sharpe defended by asserting offsets for interest, closing costs, and attorney fees, and moved to dismiss on grounds that a prior probate court order confirming the sale had res judicata effect, barring the claims. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal and remanded, holding that Sharpe failed to properly introduce the probate court judgment as summary judgment evidence, so res judicata could not be established. The decision turned on procedural requirements for presenting evidence of prior judgments under Texas rules.

propertyprocedure