Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Judge, Court of Appeals of Texas
Town of Flower Mound v. Mockingbird Pipeline, L.P.
Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · 2011-11-23 · cited 2×
The case involved Mockingbird Pipeline’s condemnation action under Utilities Code section 181.004 to acquire a gas pipeline easement across land owned by the Town of Flower Mound, a home-rule municipality. Flower Mound filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting governmental immunity that the Denton County Probate Court denied, prompting the town’s attempted interlocutory appeal under Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(a)(8). The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. It held that section 51.014(a) expressly authorizes such appeals only from interlocutory orders of a “district court, county court at law, or county court,” and the statute’s plain language, strict-construction requirement, and legislative history contain no reference to statutory probate courts.
propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory
State v. LE RICHARDSON
Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · 2011-11-10 · cited 4×
The case involved a Texas trial court’s pretrial ruling on an indictment charging Stewart Le Richardson with multiple counts of aggravated assault arising from an alcohol-related car accident; the indictment also contained paragraphs alleging three prior Iowa “aggravated misdemeanor” convictions that the State sought to use to enhance the punishment range from second-degree to first-degree felonies. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to quash those enhancement allegations, holding that the Iowa convictions were misdemeanors under Penal Code § 12.41(2) and therefore unavailable for enhancement under § 12.42. The State appealed, asserting jurisdiction under Code of Criminal Procedure article 44.01(a)(1) on the ground that the order dismissed a “portion of the indictment.” The Court of Appeals held that it lacked jurisdiction because enhancement paragraphs are not part of the substance of an indictment; they serve only to affect the punishment range and do not constitute an element of the charged offenses or a basis for dismissing any count. Consequently, the trial court’s order did not trigger the State’s limited right to appeal under the statute.
criminal lawprocedure
HAMAL v. State
Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · 2011-10-27 · cited 4×
Angela Dodd Hamal was convicted of possessing between 4 and 200 grams of methamphetamine after a traffic stop for speeding led to a drug-dog alert and the discovery of drugs in her car. She appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress the evidence and by refusing her requested jury instructions, including one under Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.23. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. It held that the initial stop was valid and that the trooper developed reasonable suspicion to prolong the detention based on Hamal’s nervousness and her inconsistent statements about her criminal history, which included recent drug arrests. The court concluded, however, that a fact issue existed about whether the trooper’s questions and continued detention were lawful, requiring the requested 38.23 instruction that would have let the jury decide whether to disregard the evidence if it found the detention illegal.
criminal lawprocedure
Gaughan v. NATIONAL CUTTING HORSE ASS'N
Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · 2011-10-06 · cited 28×
In this case, Paula Gaughan, a member of the nonprofit National Cutting Horse Association (NCHA), sued for a declaratory judgment that she was entitled to inspect and copy the organization's financial records, including employment contracts, payroll, and vendor payments, without any confidentiality restrictions, after the NCHA conditioned production on a protective order and cost-sharing. The trial court entered a protective order allowing the NCHA to designate certain documents confidential, granted the NCHA's motion for summary judgment, denied Gaughan's cross-motion, and incorporated the protective order into the final judgment; the court of appeals affirmed. The court held that under article 1396-2.23 of the Texas Non-Profit Corporation Act, a member's inspection rights are not absolute and may be limited by legitimate confidentiality interests of the corporation and third parties, as supported by analogous precedents under the Business Corporations Act; Gaughan had already received all requested documents, and the protective order reasonably balanced access with those interests without denying her statutory rights.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Ex Parte Chamberlain
Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · 2011-08-30 · cited 5×
This case concerns an appeal on remand from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Ex parte Chamberlain, where the applicant challenged the trial court's denial of habeas corpus relief under article 11.072. Chamberlain, who pleaded guilty to sexual assault, argued that the Texas Sex Offender Registration Program's lifetime registration requirement violated his substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by imposing ongoing obligations without an individualized mechanism to end them based on low risk. On remand, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals reaffirmed its prior holdings that reputation is not a fundamental right triggering heightened scrutiny, applied rational basis review, and held that the SORP's requirements are rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in protecting the public from sex offenders. The court noted that while Chamberlain is currently ineligible for deregistration under the list promulgated by the Council on Sex Offender Treatment, the statutory framework (Code of Criminal Procedure articles 62.401-.408) provides an early-termination process for certain qualifying offenses, and questions about which offenses qualify or how long registration should last are matters for the legislature. The court therefore overruled the due process claim and affirmed the denial of relief.
criminal lawprocedurecivil rights
In Re BGD
Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) · 2011-08-25
The case involved a grandmother's petition for court-ordered visitation with her three grandchildren following the death of their mother and disputes with the father over access. After an initial failed custody attempt by the grandparents, the trial court granted temporary and then final visitation orders under the Texas Family Code. The Court of Appeals reversed the visitation judgment, holding that the grandmother lacked standing, the order violated the law of the case from prior proceedings, and the evidence was insufficient to show that denial of access would significantly impair the children's physical health or emotional development. The court remanded solely for reconsideration of the father's request for attorney's fees as the prevailing party.
family law