In Gonzalez v. Razi, the Gonzalezes appealed a declaratory judgment ruling that they had not properly redeemed property sold at a 2007 tax foreclosure sale to Razi, despite submitting affidavits and payment to the tax assessor-collector under Texas Tax Code section 34.21. The trial court found the property was not their homestead and that redemption was invalid. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Gonzalezes met the statutory requirements for redemption through substantial compliance with payment (within about 1% of the calculated amount) and diligent efforts to contact Razi, and that Razi failed to prove the property was not their homestead or that additional costs were owed. The court remanded for entry of judgment declaring the redemption effective.
The case involved the Clear Lake City Water Authority's condemnation action to acquire a 178-acre former golf course from Clear Lake Country Club for construction of a storm water detention facility to address flooding in the district. The trial court dismissed the action after a jury found that the Authority's determination to take the property was fraudulent and arbitrary and capricious. On appeal, the court concluded that the evidence was legally insufficient to support those findings because the Authority had reasonably relied on an engineer's recommendation for flood control purposes, and any incidental benefits from preventing redevelopment did not establish fraud or arbitrariness. The court reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings to permit condemnation upon payment of the jury-determined fair market value of $5.1 million.
In Mattox v. Jackson, property owners Mattox and Wilkerson appealed a trial court's order granting a temporary injunction to neighboring property owners, the Jacksons, who sought to prevent obstructions on a disputed roadway easement. The Court of Appeals reversed the injunction, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the request based on an unverified oral application without allowing evidence or requiring proof of the necessary elements for injunctive relief. The core reasoning was that applicants for a temporary injunction must plead and prove a cause of action, a probable right to relief, and probable irreparable injury, which was not done here, and the status quo could not be preserved without such showing.
The case involved Charlie Mack Thomas, Jr., who was convicted of felony driving while intoxicated after a jury trial and sentenced to 40 years in prison. Thomas appealed, raising issues including the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from an allegedly improper traffic stop by an officer outside his jurisdiction, the admission of breath test results, jury charge errors, and other evidentiary and procedural matters. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the stop was justified by reasonable suspicion based on observed traffic violations, that the breath test was consensual, and that the appellant failed to preserve error or adequately brief several points.
The case involved Warren Harrison's conviction for murder after a jury trial in which he claimed self-defense in a shooting incident. Harrison appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his request for more time during voir dire and that his counsel was ineffective for not using the allotted time effectively. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that Harrison waived any error regarding the voir dire process and jury selection by twice stating he had no objection to the seated jury. On the ineffective assistance claim, the court found that counsel's performance was not deficient, as he asked relevant questions about bias, self-defense, and gun ownership, challenged jurors for cause, and pursued a defense strategy at trial.
This case involved a wrongful death and survival action stemming from the workplace death of Oscar Gomez, an employee of Republic Waste Services. The trial court entered judgment awarding over $1.4 million in damages to Gomez's common-law wife and father after a jury trial. On appeal, the defendants challenged the exclusion of evidence regarding Gomez's undocumented immigrant status, arguing it was relevant to calculating future lost earnings. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court reasonably exercised its discretion to exclude the evidence as speculative and of limited probative value.