Craig T. Enoch

The case involved parents suing a hospital and physicians for battery and negligence after their infant, born alive at 23 weeks gestation and weighing about 629 grams, received resuscitative treatment without the parents' consent. The parents had requested no heroic measures, expecting the infant to die, but hospital staff decided a neonatologist should evaluate the baby at birth and proceed with treatment if appropriate under emergent conditions. The court of appeals had ruled against the parents because the infant's condition was not certifiably terminal under the Natural Death Act, and the Texas Supreme Court affirmed that judgment. The court's reasoning was that any pre-birth treatment decisions could not be fully informed, and once born, the infant faced an emergency where treatment was needed immediately to possibly save its life before parental consent or court intervention could be obtained, creating an exception to the general rule requiring consent for treating a child. The negligence claim based on hospital policies also failed for the same reasons.

healthcarefamily lawtorts & liability

The case concerned whether the Texas Highway Beautification Act, which restricts outdoor advertising signs near interstate and primary highways, violated Pat Barber's free speech rights by preventing him from displaying a billboard with the message "Just say NO to Searches" on his nonresidential property. The Texas Supreme Court held that the Act is content-neutral and constitutes a valid time, place, and manner restriction under both the United States and Texas Constitutions, reversing the court of appeals' contrary ruling. The court reasoned that the Act's prohibitions and exemptions are based on the sign's location and general purpose rather than its specific message or viewpoint, and that it advances substantial government interests in highway safety and aesthetics without unduly burdening speech. The Texas Constitution provides no greater protection in this context than the federal First Amendment.

free speechproperty

The case was a parental rights termination proceeding in which a jury found that Shana Strickland had endangered her five children through conditions or conduct, constructively abandoned them, and failed to comply with court orders, and that termination served the children's best interests, leading the trial court to terminate her rights. Strickland appealed, challenging the admission of prior court orders containing fact findings and a mediation agreement as violating evidence rules and confidentiality statutes, the court of appeals' refusal to review an unpreserved factual sufficiency claim, and alleged ineffective assistance by her appointed counsel for failing to record parts of the trial, preserve the sufficiency complaint, and seek less restrictive alternatives. The Texas Supreme Court held that admitting the unredacted orders was error but harmless, the mediation agreement was properly admitted, parents in termination cases have a right to effective assistance of counsel, counsel's failure to preserve factual sufficiency could amount to ineffective assistance under some circumstances, and the case should be remanded for the court of appeals to assess harm on that issue while rejecting other ineffective assistance claims.

family lawprocedure

This case involved the termination of a father's parental rights to his two children under Texas Family Code section 161.001(1)(Q), which allows termination if a parent is incarcerated and unable to care for the child for at least two years from the filing of the petition. The father had been imprisoned since 1993 for drug offenses and an escape attempt, with a release date in 2003, and the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services sought termination in 1998. The Supreme Court of Texas held that the two-year incarceration period applies prospectively from the petition's filing date and that the statute is constitutional as applied to the father despite his incarceration beginning before the law's effective date. The court reversed the court of appeals' decision, which had found the statute unconstitutionally applied, and rendered judgment terminating the father's parental rights.

family lawcriminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between N.P., Inc. and developer Jerald Turboff over entitlement to reimbursement payments from Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 36 for constructing water, sewer, and drainage facilities on a tract of land. Turboff had entered a 1984 contract with the MUD promising to build and convey the facilities in exchange for reimbursement of costs, but he lost title to the property and facilities through foreclosure before completing the conveyance; N.P., Inc. later bought the land and facilities and entered its own contract with the MUD. The trial court and court of appeals ruled for Turboff based on his claimed reservation of the reimbursement right, but the Texas Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment for N.P., Inc., concluding that the reimbursement was a personal contract right tied to the ability to convey clear title to the facilities, which Turboff could no longer perform.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved an indigent prison inmate who filed a pro se medical malpractice suit against a prison doctor after being reassigned to hard labor despite severe back problems, leading to the trial court denying appointed counsel and dismissing the case for failure to file a required expert report. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that suing a prison employee created exceptional circumstances requiring appointed counsel. The Texas Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that an indigent inmate has no automatic right to appointed counsel in a civil case merely because the defendant is a prison employee. The Court reasoned that appointment of counsel in civil matters is discretionary under Texas Government Code section 24.016, inmate suits against prison personnel are common rather than exceptional, and medical malpractice plaintiffs can typically secure representation on contingency.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability