Second Court of Appeals

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of February 18, 2019.

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.

Kawcak v. Antero Res. Corp., No. 02-18-00301-CV (Feb. 21, 2019) (Bassel, J., joined by Gabriel and Pittman, JJ.).

Held:  In a matter of first impression, we interpret the word “common” in TCPA section 27.001(2)’s definition of “the right of association” under its plain meaning, which requires more than two tortfeasors conspiring to act tortiously for their own selfish benefit.  Because Kawcak acknowledges that his invocation of the TCPA assumes a definition of “common” at odds with our holding, we conclude that the TCPA does not apply to this lawsuit.

Espinoza v. State, No. 02-18-00324-CR (Feb. 21, 2019) (Sudderth, C.J., joined by Birdwell and Bassel, JJ.).

Held:   Under Garcia v. State, 792 S.W.2d 88 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990), the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the State’s designated outcry witness—the forensic interviewer—to testify when neither party developed any testimony about the complainant’s earlier statement to her sister.