Second Court of Appeals

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of April 10, 2017.

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

Norhill Energy LLC v. McDaniel, No. 02-16-00011-CV (Apr. 13, 2017) (Sudderth, J., joined by Meier J.; Gabriel, J., concurs and dissents with opinion).

Held:  Because Appellant failed to demonstrate that its actual damages for breach of contract amounted to $50,000, the trial court did not err by refusing to substitute the jury’s $50,000 award for money had and received in place of the $0 award that the jury found for breach of contract.  However, the trial court erred by granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict for Appellee on Appellant’s money-had-and-received claim when Appellant did not seek to vary the express agreement between the parties via the equitable claim.

Concurrence and Dissent:  Because Norhill’s claims were covered by the terms of its valid, express contract with McDaniel, Norhill cannot recover under the equitable, quasi-contractual theory of money had and received even though the jury found Norhill was not entitled to damages for breach of contract.

Hawkins v. State, No. 02-16-00104-CR (Apr. 13, 2017) (Pittman, J., joined by Gabriel and Sudderth, JJ.).

Held:  Appellant challenges his court costs.  The subsections of local government code 133.102 that allocate portions of the $133 consolidated fee he paid to “accounts and funds” for “abused children’s counseling” and “comprehensive rehabilitation” violate the Separation of Powers Clause, but the Salinas decision of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals bars us from awarding Appellant any relief.