Texas Supreme Court Orders 2/6/09

The Texas Supreme Court issued no opinions with this week's regular orders.

Things have been very quiet lately.  The Court has conferences scheduled for Monday and Tuesday of next week and again on February 23 and 24, so I suspect the floodgates will open and we'll have several new decisions before month's end.

In other matters of interest, Chief Justice Jefferson is scheduled to give the "State of the Judiciary" address to a joint session of the Senate and House on Wednesday, February 11, at 11:00 a.m.  Listen to the address live by following this link and going to "Live House Chamber Stream."

Interlocutory Appeal After Final Judgment?

Although appeal is generally not available absent a final judgment, Texas law allows parties to bring accelerated interlocutory appeals in several circumstances.  In most cases, the trial is stayed by statute until the interlocutory appeal is resolved,  But sometimes the trial court renders a final judgment before then.

What does one do in that situation?  File an amended notice of appeal?

No, says Isuani v. Manske-Sheffield Radiology Group, 802 S.W.2d 235 (Tex. 1991) (per curiam).  Under this decision, the interlocutory appeal has become moot and must be dismissed to prevent premature review of the merits.

Filing an amended notice of appeal wouldn't work because it wouldn't "correct[] a defect or omission in an earlier filed notice . . . ."  TRAP 25.1(f); see Rainbow Group, Ltd. v. Wagoner, 219 S.W.3d 485, 492-93 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, no pet.). If the losing party wants to appeal the final judgment, it must file a new notice of appeal complying with TRAP 25.1.

Third Court Upholds Future Mental Anguish Award

In Hyde Park Baptist Church v. Turner (No. 03-07-00437-CV), a case involving allegations that a young child suffered abuse at the hands of a church daycare worker, the Third Court of Appeals has affirmed a money judgment that included a significant award for future mental anguish.

The Court rejected the church's no-evidence challenge to that award after determining that the church failed to preserve error by timely objecting to plaintiff's expert testimony as unreliable.  The Court went on to review the evidence and concluded it was sufficient to support the award.

The Court also disagreed with the church's contention that, under City of Tyler v. Likes, future mental-anguish damages are not recoverable absent evidence of serious bodily injury, a "special relationship" between the parties, injuries of a shocking and disturbing nature, or intent or malice by the defendant.  In doing so, the Court concluded that "Likes does not set forth an exhaustive list of the types of cases in which future mental anguish damages are available."  In any event, the Court determined that the worker's actions involved a sufficient level of intent or malice to satisfy the proposed standard in light of the jury charge, which allowed the jury to consider both the church's and the worker's conduct in assessing damages.

The Court further rejected the church's challenges to the jury's award of future medical expenses and the allocation of responsibility between the church and the worker.