Morrison brief in Texas

2024See United Scaffolding, 537 S.W.3d at 471 .

2023“In any final conviction, the evidence was subjected to judicial testing of guilt with a standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof was met.” Bluitt v. State, 137 S.W.3d 51, 54 (Tex. Crim.

2022“There is simply no basis in the statute to tie the timeliness of an objection to a judge’s authority under any given assignment order.” Id.

2022With respect to timeliness of Morrison’s objection, Section 74.053 “does not say that objections must be filed before the judge presides over any hearing under the assignment … 8 rather, [] to be timely an objection must be filed before the judge presides over any hearing.” Canales, 52 S.W.3d at 702 .

2019In Morrison, the court concluded “that, if there is at least an indirect connection between Morrison’s claim and the provision of health care, we are bound to rule that the claim is a HCLC.” 428 S.W.3d at 332 ; see also Oak Park, Inc. v. Harrison, 206 S.W.3d 133, 135 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2006, no pet.).

2019In Oak Park, a patient receiving treatment for addiction, Harrison, was injured in the facility’s common area when another patient attempted to escape. 206 S.W.3d at 141 While the escaping patient was being restrained, Harrison was injured in the melee.

2015To the extent the trial court denied the temporary injunction on this basis, it abused its discretion. 8 See, e.g., McNeilus Companies, Inc. v. Sams, 971 S.W.2d 507 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997, no pet.); Sadler Clinic Ass’n, P.A. v. Hart, No. 09-09-00452-CV, 2010 WL 114241 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Jan. 14, 2010, no pet.). 22 As outlined in Morrison’s brief, several Texas courts have held that “reformation is not only a final remedy” and should—in certain circumstances—be ordered at an interlocutory stage.9 Liss, 2014 WL 1257278 , at *10; see also, e.g., Poole v. U.S. Money Reserve, Inc., No. 09-

2015Sys., Inc., 53 S.W.3d 687, 694 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2001, no pet.) (enforcing covenant in specific geographic area where former employee had worked); Butler v. Arrow Mirror & Glass, Inc., 51 S.W.3d 787, 794 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (similar); Curtis v. Ziff Energy Grp., Ltd., 12 S.W.3d 114, 119 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (similar). 6 Further, as noted in Morrison’s brief, any testimony that Anthony and Hilburn were not working for National at the time of the temporary injunction hearing is irrelevant because they were subject to TRO at that time.

2015Sys., Inc., 53 S.W.3d 687, 694 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2001, no pet.) (enforcing covenant in specific geographic area where former employee had worked); Butler v. Arrow Mirror & Glass, Inc., 51 S.W.3d 787, 794 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (similar); Curtis v. Ziff Energy Grp., Ltd., 12 S.W.3d 114, 119 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (similar). 6 Further, as noted in Morrison’s brief, any testimony that Anthony and Hilburn were not working for National at the time of the temporary injunction hearing is irrelevant because they were subject to TRO at that time.

2015Sys., Inc., 53 S.W.3d 687, 694 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2001, no pet.) (enforcing covenant in specific geographic area where former employee had worked); Butler v. Arrow Mirror & Glass, Inc., 51 S.W.3d 787, 794 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (similar); Curtis v. Ziff Energy Grp., Ltd., 12 S.W.3d 114, 119 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (similar). 6 Further, as noted in Morrison’s brief, any testimony that Anthony and Hilburn were not working for National at the time of the temporary injunction hearing is irrelevant because they were subject to TRO at that time.

2014Co. v. Smart, 423 S.W.3d 462, 467 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2014). 11 The majority opinion states that the injury occurred as a result of the nursing home’s actions in attempting to keep the premises safe and clean for its residents; consequently, the opinion reasons Morrison’s claim is related to health care.