Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of March 24, 2008

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.

In re XTO Energy Resources I, LP, No. 2-07-382-CV (Mar. 26, 2008) (orig. proceeding) (Gardner, J., joined by Cayce, C.J.; Walker, J., dissents with opinion). [Note: Both opinions are at the same link in one document.]: Held: The trial court abused its discretion by ordering Petitioner to disclose data concerning gas well reserves because (1) Petitioner established the data's status as trade secrets and (2) Real Parties in Interest did not show that the data are necessary to a fair adjudication; Real Parties in Interest's expert testified that the data would merely “assist” or "help" him prepare a report "with the least amount of uncertainty."; Dissent: The primary argument asserted by Real Parties in Interest—that allowance of the trade secret privilege would tend to work an injustice by preventing a fair adjudication of Petitioner's no-damages defense by preventing Real Parties in Interest from discrediting this position taken by Petitioner—appears to raise an alternative ground for affirming the trial court's ruling. The majority fails to address this argument.

Stephanie Dukes, et. al v. Philip Johnson/Alan Ritchie Architects, P.C., et al, No. 2-07-095-CV (Mar. 27, 2008) (McCoy, J., joined by Livingston and Walker, JJ.).: Held: Appellees—who are comprised of architectural firms, engineering firms, and individual architects and engineers who have been involved over the years with the design or restoration of the Water Gardens—owed no duty to the drowning victims arising from their work on the Water Gardens. Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees.

City of Arlington v. Barnes, No. 2-07-249-CV (Mar. 27, 2008) (Livingston, J., joined by Cayce, C.J., and McCoy, J.).: Held: The trial court erred in denying Appellant's plea to the jurisdiction because the Arlington Police Department Accident Review Board's findings and reprimand were not evidence that raised a fact issue as to whether Officer Warren was reckless as a matter of law. Appellant's internal documents were only evidence of Officer Warren's negligence, which does not waive Appellant's immunity. Additionally, Appellees did not present any other evidence that raised a fact issue as to whether Officer Warren knew or should have known that his actions posed a high degree of risk or serious injury.

Fagan v. State, No. 2-07-188-CR (Mar. 27, 2008) (Livingston, J., joined by Cayce, C.J., and McCoy, J.).: Held: Appellant's testimony, in light of his guilty plea, sufficiently embraced every element of the offense of delivery of a controlled substance of 400 grams or more and established Appellant's guilt. Appellant's pleas of guilty and true were not rendered involuntary due to a conflict of interest with his trial counsel nor was Appellant denied effective assistance of counsel because he failed to sign his judicial confession contained in the written plea admonishments.