No. 12-0136
Click for Official Page
The Court requested full merits briefing on June 29, 2012. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on February 6, 2015. File Closed
Per Curiam OpinionView Electronic Briefs | Oral Argument N/A | Video N/A PDF
| Appellate District: | 4th Court of Appeals |
| Outcome Below: | Affirmed |
| COA Docket No.: | 04-10-00661-CV |
| Opinion Author: | Honorable Sandee Bryan Marion |
| Trial Court: | 63rd District Court |
| County: | Val Verde |
| Trial Judge: | Honorable Enrique Fernandez |
| Trial Docket: | 27662 |
| Date | Event | Outcome | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2015-05-07 | Case Stored | ||
| 2015-03-20 | Mandate issued | ||
| 2015-02-06 | Petition for Review granted under TRAP 59.1 | ||
| 2015-02-06 | Opinion issued | Court of Appeals' judgment reversed; cause remanded to trial court | |
| 2015-02-06 | Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record | Issued | |
| 2015-02-06 | Petition for Review disposed | Petition granted pursuant to TRAP 59.1 | |
| 2015-01-12 | Letter brief (Respondent) | ||
| 2014-12-16 | Letter brief (Petitioner) | ||
| This case was pending on merits briefs between September 4, 2012 and December 16, 2014. | |||
| 2012-09-04 | Reply Brief (Petitioner) | ||
| 2012-08-20 | Brief on the Merits (Respondent) | ||
| 2012-07-30 | Brief on the Merits (Petitioner) | ||
| 2012-07-05 | Case Record Filed | ||
| 2012-06-29 | Brief on the Merits Requested | ||
| 2012-06-29 | Record Requested in Petition for Review | ||
| 2012-06-15 | Reply to Response (Petitioner) | ||
| 2012-06-08 | Response to Petition (Respondent) | ||
| 2012-04-19 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. | Filing granted | |
| 2012-04-19 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Response | ||
| 2012-04-13 | Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response | ||
| 2012-03-13 | Case forwarded to Court | ||
| 2012-03-07 | Response Waiver filed | ||
| 2012-02-17 | Appendix Filed (Petitioner) | ||
| 2012-02-17 | Petition for Review (Petitioner) |
| Party | Counsel | Role | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gutierrez, Jesse James |
|
Respondent | ||||
| Wackenhut Corporation |
|
Petitioner |
This is a negligent-spoliation case. After a contested hearing before trial, the district court ordered that a spoliation instruction would be given to the jury. When it came time to approve the jury charge, however, the defendant did not renew this objection. The court of appeals held that this waived any complaint about spoliation.
The Supreme Court disagreed. It held that the objections made before trial were clear enough, and clearly enough ruled upon, that the question of whether some spoliation question was proper had been adequately preserved. (It noted that there was no challenge here to the precise wording of the instruction, a challenge that might have required a different type of objection or ruling.)
