Laura Carter Higley

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.

propertytaxes

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.

propertyenvironment

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.

propertyprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

immigrationtorts & liabilityprocedure

In this medical negligence case, Tangie Walters sued Dr. Keith Spooner, Cleveland Regional Medical Center, and Shirley Kiefer, alleging that a sponge left in her abdomen during a 1995 tubal ligation caused her ongoing pain and medical issues. After the Texas Supreme Court remanded the case following a limitations ruling, the trial court granted Walters's motion and ordered that statements in the defendants' 2006 summary judgment motions constituted judicial admissions of liability facts, prohibiting the defendants from offering contrary evidence at trial. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court clearly abused its discretion because the cited statements were not clear and unequivocal admissions that the defendants left the sponge or caused harm but instead addressed the timing of symptom discovery in the context of limitations. The court further held that the defendants lacked an adequate remedy by appeal, as the order would skew the proceedings and impair their defense in ways unlikely to be remedied on appeal. It therefore conditionally granted mandamus relief directing the trial court to vacate the order.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Tracy Bush's appeal from a divorce decree dissolving her marriage to Michael Wayne Bush and appointing them joint managing conservators of their daughter C.B., with challenges to the limited appointment of an amicus attorney, the joint conservatorship with Michael designating the child's domicile, the unequal division of the community estate including a tax obligation, and the classification of certain horses as Michael's separate property rather than community property. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decree in full. It held that Tracy failed to preserve her objection to the amicus attorney's limited role, that legally sufficient evidence supported the findings that Tracy had an affair, no sexual assault occurred, and the parents should share conservatorship with Michael designating domicile, and that the horses were properly traced as separate property under the Texas Family Code based on their origin from casualty loss proceeds to Michael's separate property.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved Kimberly Dawn Trenor, who was convicted by a jury of capital murder for the death of her two-year-old daughter, Riley Ann Sawyers, after evidence showed prolonged physical abuse by Trenor and her husband that ended in the child's death; she was sentenced to life in prison as required by statute. Trenor appealed, claiming she was denied compulsory process and that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support her conviction. The court affirmed the judgment, reasoning that the evidence was sufficient to show Trenor aided and participated in the abuse with the intent to promote or assist the capital murder under the law of parties.

criminal law

In Mims v. State, the defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree felony arson for intentionally setting fire to an apartment building, which caused the death of a resident, and he challenged the trial court's affirmative finding that he used a deadly weapon, namely fire. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the conviction and the deadly-weapon finding. The court reasoned that fire qualifies as a deadly weapon under Texas Penal Code section 1.07(17) because, though not a solid object, it manifests through tangible aspects like flame and heat and is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury in the manner of its use or intended use. The court further held that the same conduct supporting an element of the arson offense could also support the deadly-weapon finding, and that the statute imposes no requirement that a deadly weapon be a physical object with specific traits beyond its capacity to cause harm.

criminal law

In this mandamus proceeding from a divorce case, relator Mary Mabray sought to disqualify her husband's counsel Brenda Keen and revoke consent to arbitration under a Cooperative Law Dispute Resolution Agreement the parties signed after filing for divorce. The agreement required informal discovery and, if no settlement by April 30, 2009, submission to binding arbitration. The Court of Appeals of Texas denied mandamus relief, holding that the agreement was not a collaborative law proceeding under Texas Family Code § 6.603, so the statute's disqualification rules for counsel did not apply, and that the arbitration clause was enforceable because the parties had expressly agreed to it and no public policy violation was established.

family lawprocedure

This case involves Shawn Hudson, suing as assignee of City of Houston employee Gilda Green, who sought to enforce claims that the City breached duties to defend and indemnify Green in an earlier tort suit stemming from a 2000 accident in which Green's garbage truck struck and killed Hudson's son. Hudson alleged the City negligently rejected a settlement offer under the Stowers doctrine after a default judgment was entered against Green for $3.5 million and failed to honor indemnity coverage up to $100,000 per claimant. The trial court granted the City's motion for summary judgment and denied Hudson's partial motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court held that Green had not provided the required timely notice of the suit or requested a defense and coverage pursuant to city ordinances, and the default judgment had prejudiced the City, so no duty to defend or indemnify arose.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Clifford Smith, an inmate in Galveston County Jail, sued the county for negligence after slipping and injuring himself in the shower due to the smooth concrete floor lacking non-skid covering. The trial court dismissed the suit after granting the county's plea to the jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the Texas Tort Claims Act does not waive the county's immunity because the jail section was constructed in 1960 without subsequent modifications, and the decision not to install additional safety features constitutes a discretionary act exempt from liability under the Act.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

In Washington v. State, the appellant was charged with burglary after a jewelry store break-in; during his trial, the complaining witness became ill and had a loud outburst in the hallway that some jurors overheard, prompting the defense to request and receive a mistrial. The appellant then sought pretrial habeas corpus relief, arguing that double jeopardy barred retrial because the witness's conduct could be attributed to the State or because prosecutors had consciously disregarded a risk of disruption. The Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court's denial of habeas relief, holding that the record showed no intentional prosecutorial misconduct intended to provoke a mistrial and that the witness's actions could not be imputed to the State. The court reasoned that the State lacked advance knowledge that would allow anticipation of the outburst and that the evidence supported the trial court's findings against the double-jeopardy claim under both state and federal constitutions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Laurie Lea Williamson, accused of medical child abuse by fabricating or inducing symptoms in her son C.W. that led to two unnecessary surgical procedures when he was five and six years old. Following a joint trial, a jury convicted her on two counts of first-degree felony injury to a child under Texas Penal Code section 22.04, finding she caused serious bodily injury by cutting with a scalpel as a deadly weapon, and imposed concurrent 15-year sentences. The trial court entered affirmative deadly-weapon findings in each judgment. On appeal, the court affirmed both convictions, holding that the jury charges properly instructed the jury on the elements of the offense and the reasonable medical care defense without commenting on the evidence's weight, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts.

criminal law

The case involved Clinton Mitchell, who was convicted by a jury of criminally negligent homicide after driving a City of Houston dump truck through a red light at an intersection, striking a stopped Jeep, and then running over and killing pedestrian Adam Knetsar. The jury also found that Mitchell used a motor vehicle as a deadly weapon, and the trial court sentenced him to five years in prison. Mitchell appealed, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that witness accounts of Mitchell's high speed, failure to brake or stop at the red light, and inattention provided sufficient evidence that he should have perceived the substantial and unjustifiable risk created by his conduct.

criminal law

In Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, Linett Wilkerson applied for a family violence protective order under the Texas Family Code against her stepson Dennis Wilkerson, alleging he made multiple threats of bodily injury and death to her and her children in an effort to pressure her to abandon a lawsuit over the management of family-owned businesses and assets following her husband's death. After a two-day hearing featuring testimony about incidents including Dennis firing a gun near her and other explicit threats conveyed through an associate, the trial court granted the protective order based on findings that family violence had occurred in the past and was likely to occur in the future. Dennis appealed, arguing insufficient evidence, reliance on inadmissible evidence, and that the case was not appropriate for such an order. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order, concluding that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the trial court's determinations and distinguishing the facts from prior cases lacking direct threats of physical harm.

family lawcriminal law

In Reaves v. Lindsay, the dispute centered on whether owners of land subject to an express non-exclusive easement for roadway access could install gates or cattle guards at the easement's intersection with a public road to facilitate cattle raising, or whether such installations were barred by the easement terms. The trial court granted summary judgment to the easement holders, ruling that the easement must remain free of any gates or cattle guards. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that neither party had established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because the easement language did not expressly prohibit gates or guards and determining whether any installation would unreasonably interfere with the easement required resolution of fact issues. The court also confirmed that the servient estate owners retained title to the underlying land despite the easement exception in their deed.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Edwin Arnoldo Campos, who was charged with first-degree felony theft of automotive window-tinting materials valued over $200,000 from a 3M warehouse where he worked as a temporary employee. A jury convicted him after hearing evidence including his confession to investigators that he had taken and sold the materials without authorization for his own tinting business, along with testimony about inventory shortages and an undercover purchase. Campos appealed, arguing that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient and that the trial court erred by admitting certain inventory reports and other evidence. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that any error in admitting the reports was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because it was cumulative of other evidence and the State's case was strong. The court therefore affirmed the conviction and sentence of six years' confinement plus a $10,000 fine.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over a government entity's purchase of a crane through an online reverse auction facilitated by a third party, where the seller was never paid after delivering the equipment. Four Seasons sued Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority for inverse condemnation under the Texas Constitution, claiming an uncompensated physical or regulatory taking, and later added a breach of contract claim. The court held that Gulf Coast's governmental immunity was not waived because the transaction was a voluntary commercial purchase akin to one by a private party, not a compelled taking under sovereign authority. It also ruled that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the contract claim due to the damages exceeding the court's limits. The appellate court reversed the denial of the plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the claims.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory