Tex Civ Pro II Flashcards
Claimant Traditional Summary Judgment
Party seeking to recover may, at any time after the adverse party has appeared or answered, move for summary judgment in their favor
Defending Traditional Summary Judgment
Party against whom a claim is asserted, may, at any time, move for summary judgment.
Motion & Affidavits for Summary Judgment–Content
State the specific grounds. Movant party must conclusively disprove at least one element of the other party’s claims or conclusively prove every element of its affirmative defense.
Affidavits must be based on personal knowledge
Granting Traditional Summary Judgment
The judgment sought shall be rendered if evidence shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
When both parties move for summary judgment and the trial court grants one motion and denies the other, the reviewing court should:
review the summary judgment evidence presented by both sides and determine all questions presented and render the judgment the trial court should have rendered.
Trial court’s order granting summary judgment does not specify the grounds relied upon, the reviewing court must:
affirm summary judgment if any of the summary judgment grounds are meritorious.
no more than a scintilla
when it is so weak as to do no more than create a mere surmise or suspicion of the fact’s existence.
unopposed testimony of an interested witness is considered conclusive if:
(1) It pertains to matters reasonably capable of exact statement
(2) It is clear, direct, and positive
(3) It is internally devoid of inconsistencies
(4) It is uncontradicted either by the testimony of other witnesses or by circumstances, and
(5) It is of a kind that could be readily controverted if untrue.
Responses by Non-Movant for Traditional Summary Judgment
(1) Presents a factual dispute–> Waive if not raised @ Trl. Ct.
(2) Attack quality of movant’s evidence–> May be raised for 1st time on appeal.
(3) Attack the movant’s legal entitlement to judgment–> May be raised for 1st time on appeal.
(4) Attack formalities of proof–> Waive if not raised @ Trl. Ct.
(5) Assert affirmative defense–>Waive if not raised @ Trl. Ct.
(6) No response: even if there is no response, a traditional summary judgment will not stand if the movant has not satisfied the summary judgment standard.
Traditional Summary Judgment Options for Defense
(1) Summary judgment for insufficient pleadings
(a) Failure to state a claim
(b) Pleadings negate the claim
(2) Traditional motion for summary judgment—Disproving Facts
Defense to No-Evid. Summary Judgment
The nonmovant must produce summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact to defeat the summary judgment.
Genuine issue of material fact
A genuine issues of material fact exists if more than a scintilla of evidence establishing the existence of the challenged element is produced.
More than Scintilla of Evidence
More than a scintilla of evidence exists if the evidence rises to a level that would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to differ in conclusions.
Std. of Review for No-Evidence Summary Judgment
When reviewing a no evidence summary judgment, the court must review the evidence presented by the motion and response in the light most favorable to the party against whom the summary judgment was rendered, crediting evidence favorable to that party if reasonable jurors could, and disregarding contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors could not.
Motion for No-Evid. Summary Judgment–Content
the motion must be specific in challenging the evidentiary support for an element of a claim or defense.
that there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of a claim or defense on which an adverse party would have the burden of proof at trial.
Jury Trial
No jury trial for any civil cases, but may be requested within a reasonable time, but not less than 30 days from date of trail. Presumed reasonable when made over 30 days, not reasonable if made within 30 days. Must pay fee, and paying such fee doesn’t give you control over jury as you won’t be able to remove it unless non-paying party agrees.
Setting for Trial
Court may set trial at any time or upon request. Notice of first trial setting must be given at least 45 days prior, but only reasonable time required after that.
Continuance Generally
No application for a continuance shall be granted except fo good cause supported by affidavit.
Waived if announcement of ready made, except for unforeseeable events arising though no fault of movant.
Req. for Continuance to Obtain Testimony
Present affidavit that testimony is material, and that it can’t be obtained by any other method, if it’s not the first of such request. (Other means not req. if it’s the first of such application).
Req. for Continuance due to Absence of Counsel
Left to discretion of the Court, but that alone is not good cause.
Mandatory Continuance for Legislative Session
If trial is set within 30days from start of legislative session, or if session already underway, and party or attorney are members of the legislature, then continuance is mandatory.
Attorney is required to present affidavit stating intent to actively participate in the case.
Not mandatory, but discretionary if attorney is hired within 10days of the trial setting.
A legislative continuance is mandatory except in those cases in which the party opposing the continuance alleges that a substantial existing right will be defeated or abridged by delay. If the allegations are shown to be meritorious the court should deny the continuance.
Consolidation
When actions involving a common question of law or fact
Separate Trials
The court may order a separate trial of any claim, or of any separate issue .
Standard for Reversible Error
No judgment may be reversed on appeal on the ground that the trial court made an error of law unless:
(1) probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment; or
(2) probably prevented the appellant from properly presenting the case to the court of appeals.
If the error only affects part of the case, the court may remand only that part of the case for new trial.
Invoking “The Rule”
At the request of any party, the witnesses on both sides shall be removed from the courtroom to some place where they cannot hear the testimony delivered by any other witness in the cause.
A court has discretion to allow a witness to testify even though the witness has violated the Rule by remaining in the courtroom during another witness’s testimony.
Three Exceptions to The Rule
(1) A party who is a natural person or his or her spouse
(2) An officer or employee of a party that is not a natural person and who is designated as its representative by its attorney
(3) A person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of the cause.
Right to open and close arguments:
The party who has the burden of proof on the whole case, or the party who has the burden of proof on all matters in the charge, has the right to open and close the argument. If the defendant has admitted guilt, but liability depends upon an affirmative defense, defendant holds the right.
Exception: when there are several parties who have separate claims or defenses, the court shall determine the order of the argument.
Opening Statements
Can’t be too detailed or present inadmissible evidence
Who can Q a Witness
State judge may only question witnesses to clarify, and for the purpose of eliciting material evidence that has not been otherwise been brought out
To reverse a judgment on the ground of judicial misconduct, a complaining party must show either trial court bias or that they suffered probable prejudice.
Allowing the jurors to occasionally propound questions to the witnesses was not improper.
Judicial Commentary
If objectionable remarks by the judge are of the type which could have been rendered harmless by a proper instruction from the judge, failure to object to such remarks to such remarks and to request a curative instruction waives error.
Error is not waived if the comment could not have been cured by an instruction from the judge.
Exclusion of Evidence
May not be grounds for error unless:
(1) a substantial right of the party is affected, and
(2) the substance of the objection was made known to the trial court by offer of proof.
Rules require only a short, factual recitation of what the testimony would show is sufficient evidence to preserve an issue for appeal.
A person is disqualified to serve as a petit juror unless the person:
(1) is at least 18 years of age;
(2) is a citizen of this state and of the county in which the person is to serve as a juror;
(3) is qualified under the constitution and laws to vote in the county in which the person is to serve as a juror;
(4) is of sound mind and good moral character;
(5) is able to read and write;
(6) has not served as a petit juror for 6 days during the preceding three months in the county court or during the preceding six months in the district court;
(7) has not been convicted of misdemeanor theft or a felony; and
(8) is not under indictment or other legal accusation for misdemeanor theft or a felony.
A person is disqualified to serve as a petit juror in a particular case if he:
(1) is a witness in the case;
(2) is interested directly or indirectly, in the subject matter of the case;
(3) is related by consanguinity or affinity within the 3rd degree to a party in the case;
(4) has a bias or prejudice in favor of or against a party in the case; or
(5) has served as a petit juror in a former trial of the same case or in another case involving the same questions of fact.
Voir Dire
Trial courts should allow broad latitude to counsel to discover any bias or prejudice by the potential jurors so that peremptory challenges may be intelligently exercised.
Bias & Prejudice
Bias–> Bias in its usual meaning is an inclination toward one side of an issue rather than to the other, but to disqualify, it must appear that the state of mind of the juror leads to the natural inference that he will not it did not act with impartiality.
Prejudice–>Prejudice is more easily defined, for it means prejudgment, and consequently embraces bias; the converse is not true.
Statements that reflect a juror’s judgment about facts of a case as presented, rather than an external unfair bias or prejudice, does not amount to a disqualifying bias.
Veniremembers may be disqualified even if they say they can be fair and impartial so long as the rest of the record shows they cannot. Nevertheless, Veniremembers are not necessarily disqualified when they confess bias, so long as the rest of the record shows that is not the case. KEY: LOOK AT RECORD AS A WHOLE TO DETERMINE BIAS & PREJUDICE
Preview of Evidence during Voir Dire
The trial court does not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow questions that seek to determine the weight to be given (or not be given) a particular fact or set of relevant facts.
If the trial judge permits questions about weight jurors would give relevant case facts, then the juror’s response to such questions are not disqualifying, because while such responses reveal a fact-specific opinion, one cannot conclude that reveal an improper subject-matter bias. It’s their job to give opinion on the facts of the case, so you can’t disqualify them for that reason.
Preventing Voir Dire Questioning
In sustaining an objection to an improper voir dire question, a trial court should not foreclose all inquiry about a relevant topic.
To preserve a complaint that a trial court improperly restricted voir dire, a party must timely and specifically alert the trial court of the improperly restricted void dire question, and make clear—by words or context—the grounds and manner in which it intends to pursue inquiry.
A court abuses its discretion when its denial of the right to ask a proper question prevents determination of whether grounds exist to challenge for cause or denies intelligent use of peremptory challenges.
Statutory Disqualifications and Challenges for Cause
A challenge for cause is an objection made to a juror, alleging some fact which by law disqualifies him to server as a juror in the case.
To preserve error when a challenge for cause is denied, a party must use a peremptory challenge against the venirmember involved, exhaust its remaining challenges, and notify the trial court that a specific objectionable veniremember will remain on the jury list.
false answers given during voir dire examination
Entitled to a new trial if it was concealment by a juror in response to a specific and direct question calling for disclosure.
Peremptory Challenges
A peremptory challenge is made to a juror without assigning any reason therefor.
each party to a civil action is entitled to six peremptory challenges in a case tried in the district court, and to three in the county court.
Reapportioning Peremptory Challenges
When antagonistic parties on the same side are required to share six strikes, it is error amounting to a violation of the basic right to trial by jury.
In most cases a two-to-one ratio between sides would approach the maximum disparity allowable.
Factors for Reapportioning Peremptory Challenges
the circumstances of the particular case, the information available to the trial court, the extent and degree of the antagonism, weather the parties collaborate in selecting jurors to be struck, the number of jurors available on the pane, and such other conidiation as meet the statutory criteria of promoting the “ends of justice” and preventing “unequal advantage.”
Verdict by Portion of Original Jury
same ten or more members of an original jury of twelve or of the same five or more members of an original jury of six
rendered awarding exemplary damages only if the jury was unanimous in finding liability for and the amount of exemplary damages
Jury Misconduct
A juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury’s deliberations, except that a juror may testify whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror.
Batson Challenge
(1) The opponent of the peremptory challenge must establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination.
(2) The burden then shifts to the party who has exercised the strike to come forward with a race-neutral explanation. Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race-neutral for purposes of the analysis at step two.
(3) The trial court must then determine if the party challenging the strike has proven purposeful racial discrimination, and the trial court may believe or not believe the explanation offered by the party who exercised the peremptory challenge.
Note: If a non-challenger proffered reason for striking a black panelist applies just as well to an otherwise-similar non-minority who is permitted to serve, that is evidence tending to disprove purposeful discrimination to the considered at Batson’s 3rd step.
Prerequisites of Appeal
A point in a motion for new trial is not a prerequisite to a complaint on appeal in either a jury or a nonjury case, except :
(1) A complaint on which evidence must be heard such as one of jury misconduct or newly discovered evidence or failure to set aside a judgment by default.
(2) A complaint of factual insufficiency of the evidence;
(3) A complaint that a jury finding is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence;
(4) A complaint of inadequacy or excessiveness of the damages found by the jury; or
(5) Incurable jury argument if not otherwise ruled on by the trial court.
Arguments at Trial
Arguments on the facts should be addressed to the jury, when one is impaneled in a case that is being tried, under the supervision of the court. Counsel shall be required to confine the argument strictly to the evidence and to the arguments of opposing counsel.
Court will not be required to wait for objections, but should violations not be noticed and corrected by the court, opposing counsel may ask leave of court to rise and present his point of objection.
Preserving Error for Improper Arguments at Trial
Whether the argument considered in its proper setting, was reasonably calculated to cause such prejudice to the opposing litigant that a withdrawal by counsel or an instruction by the court, or both, could not eliminate the probability that it resulted in an improper verdict.
General Charge
where the judge points out to the jury the factual elements to be found and by instructions directs the jury as to the method to be followed in finding the facts and giving an answer finding in favor of one party or the other.
Specific Issue
Asks the jury specific questions that elicit findings on special controverted facts, and the judge determines the legal consequence of those findings
Broad Form Questions
Whenever feasible, submit the cause upon broad-form questions. Inferential rebuttal questions shall not be submitted in the charge.
When a single broad-form liability question erroneously commingles valid and invalid liability theories and the appellant’s objection is timely and specific, the error is harmful when it cannot determine whether the improperly submitted theories formed the sole basis for the jury’s finding. However, when questions are submitted in a manner that allows the appellate court to determine that the jury’s verdict was actually based on a valid liability theory, the error may be harmless.
Inferential Rebuttals
Charge may not have a question about this but you can have it under an instruction.
Comments on the Weight
The court’s charge shall not be objectionable on the ground that it incidentally constitutes a comment on the weight of the evidence or advises the jury of the effect of their answers when it is properly a part of an instruction or definition.
To be a direct comment on the weight of the evidence, the issue submitted must suggest to the jury the trial court’s opinion on the matter.