In Springer v. American Zurich Insurance Co., the plaintiff appealed a no-evidence summary judgment granted to the defendant insurer, which upheld a Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission decision denying benefits. Springer alleged she sustained a compensable occupational disease injury and resulting disability from carbon monoxide exposure caused by a defective heater at her workplace. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that Springer failed to file any response to the summary judgment motion and therefore did not produce more than a scintilla of evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on the elements of a compensable injury or disability. The opinion also rejected related arguments concerning the need for expert causation evidence, the effect of the administrative decision on jury trials, motions for continuance and new trial, and evidentiary rulings, finding no error by the trial court.
This case involved a dispute between Acadian Geophysical Services, Inc., a seismic services company, and eleven former employees over an alleged oral profit-sharing agreement. The employees claimed that Acadian's president promised each of them 3.5% of the proceeds from any future sale or merger of the company in exchange for joining the firm and working without initial salary; they sued for breach after Acadian was acquired by PGS in a stock-swap merger, and a jury awarded them damages. On appeal, the Texas Court of Appeals at Waco affirmed the verdict, holding that evidence supported the president's actual or apparent authority to bind the company and that the agreement covered the transaction proceeds. The court rejected Acadian's arguments that the president lacked authority for such an extraordinary commitment and that no proceeds were received by Acadian itself.
This case involved a dispute over title to a Houston residence owned by the Streicher trust, of which Edward Streicher Rothrock, Jr. was trustee and his children Ed III and Robin were beneficiaries. After Ed Jr. executed a deed conveying the property to RES Leasing & Management Co., Inc., a company owned by his wife Jan, the children sued, claiming the deed had never been validly delivered with intent to transfer ownership. The trial court submitted the delivery question to a jury and entered judgment awarding the children an undivided 50 percent interest each. The appellate court reversed, holding there was no evidence to support the jury's finding that delivery was ineffective; the deed had been handed to Jan with instructions to record it upon Ed Jr.'s death, establishing a contingent conveyance that became operative, and the presumption of delivery was not rebutted by any contrary evidence of intent or purpose.
In this mandamus proceeding, TXU sought to disqualify the law firm Waters & Kraus from representing plaintiffs in an asbestos exposure personal injury lawsuit, based on a former legal assistant and attorney who had worked on TXU's defense at its prior firm before joining and then leaving Waters & Kraus. The court held that an irrebuttable presumption of shared confidential information applies to the firm during the attorney's employment there, and that this presumption continues after her departure under Texas Disciplinary Rule 1.09(c) because the representation would likely involve a violation of confidentiality obligations under Rule 1.05. The trial court abused its discretion by denying the disqualification motion, leading the appellate court to conditionally grant the writ ordering the judge to disqualify the firm.
Jerry Calame filed an inverse condemnation suit against the City of Wortham, and after a bench trial the court entered judgment in Calame's favor on February 13, 2002. The City timely requested findings of fact and conclusions of law but did not file its notice of appeal until August 30, 2002. The appellate rules required the notice to be filed within 90 days after the judgment due to the findings request, making the filing more than 100 days late. The court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, holding that it could not suspend the appellate rules to extend the deadline for perfecting a civil appeal.
This case involves the appeal of Tirey Glen Smith's conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child, specifically challenging the admission of a videotaped interview with the five-year-old victim under the Confrontation Clause. On remand from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to reconsider in light of Idaho v. Wright, the Tyler Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The court held that the child was unavailable to testify due to emotional distress and avoidance behaviors observed in hearings, and that the videotaped statements bore sufficient indicia of reliability based on consistency across multiple accounts to medical personnel and investigators, the neutral setting of the interview, and corroborative details. The ruling relied on the state statute allowing such recordings when factual issues were fairly explored by a neutral party and found the evidence admissible without live cross-examination.