71 results for 'judge:"Soto"'.
J. Soto finds a lower court did not err in convicting defendant for murder. Defendant argued the evidence was insufficient and that his sentence should be reformed to criminally negligent manslaughter, including because he claimed the shooting was an accident. But there was in fact sufficient evidence that defendant acted “knowingly,” including because he initially lied about the circumstances of the shooting and attempted to hide evidence and leave town, which is “indicative of a consciousness of guilt.” Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: April 12, 2024, Case #: 08-23-00176-CR, Categories: Evidence, Murder, Manslaughter
J. Soto finds a lower court did not err in convicting defendant of continuous sexual abuse of a child. Defendant raised a number of purported issues with his conviction, including disputing evidentiary rulings made by the court, and while the lower court did indeed err by allowing the victim’s mother and two detectives to testify as outcry witnesses based on discrepancies in their testimonies, the errors “did not have a substantial and injurious effect” given the overall evidence against defendant. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: April 12, 2024, Case #: 08-23-00162-CR, Categories: Evidence, Sex Offender, Child Victims
J. Soto denies a writ of mandamus to several Mexican companies because they failed to show that a El Paso County judge abused his discretion. Those companies argued that the lower court wrongly denied their motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because “the courts of Mexico have exclusive jurisdiction,” but it is too early in this dispute to completely rule out U.S. jurisdiction.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: April 4, 2024, Case #: 08-23-00246-CV, Categories: Civil Procedure, Jurisdiction
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Soto finds a lower court did not err in denying a doctor’s motion for no-evidence summary judgment after he was sued by a patient for medical negligence. The doctor argues the patient was in fact treated by a physician assistant, but he “was the only physician” in the emergency department at the time and is listed on some of the patient’s medical documents, and therefore the patient has raised a genuine dispute “as to the existence of a physician–patient relationship.”
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: March 27, 2024, Case #: 08-23-00079-CV, Categories: Negligence, Medical Malpractice, Contract
J. Soto denies a company’s motion for rehearing in a convoluted real-estate dispute with a second company and withdraws a previous opinion on the case, substituting it with this one. As this court explained in a closely related case, there is a dispute over whether an alleged receiver had authority to act on behalf of the second company, and the lower court was wrong to deny the second firm’s due process right to challenge that authority. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: March 15, 2024, Case #: 08-22-00225-CV, Categories: Civil Procedure, Due Process, Banking / Lending
J. Soto finds a lower court erred in a convoluted real-estate dispute and withdraws a previous opinion on the case, instead substituting it with this one. This court’s prior understanding of this case relied in part on a motion to dismiss filed by a receiver who said he had authority to represent one of the companies involved in the case, but that company has disputed that receiver’s authority and has a due process right to challenge it, and the lower court was wrong to allow the receiver to assert his authority without giving the company opportunity to respond. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: March 15, 2024, Case #: 08-22-00073-CV, Categories: Civil Procedure, Due Process, Banking / Lending
J. Soto finds a lower court did not err in its handling of a property dispute between two companies. One company raised a number of issues with a temporary injunction from the lower court, which prevented it from foreclosing on a lien and the other company from selling the property, but the company cannot show how the lower court abused its discretion. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: February 29, 2024, Case #: 08-23-00157-CV, Categories: Property, Real Estate
J. Soto finds a lower court did not err in convicting defendant for murder. Defendant raised a number of issues with his conviction, including arguing a lower court had improperly negated his sudden-passion claim that he had “snapped” and killed the victim because she rejected him, but while the record does indeed show that defendant was both “jealous and possessive,” courts have long held that “a rejection of a romantic proposal does not qualify as adequate cause for purposes of the sudden passion defense,” not least because a person of “ordinary temper” does not murder people based on romantic rejections. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: February 29, 2024, Case #: 08-22-00177-CR, Categories: Evidence, Murder, Jury Instructions
J. Soto finds a lower court did not err in granting El Paso County’s plea to the jurisdiction after it was sued by a citizen who accused the county sheriff’s office of ignoring reports that a stable was mistreating animals, including her own horse. The burden is on the citizen to show why immunity should be waived, which she “has not attempted to do.” Regardless, the Texas Tort Claims Act “does not waive immunity for intentional torts.” Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: February 28, 2024, Case #: 08-23-00192-CV, Categories: Government, Tort, Immunity
J. Soto finds a lower court erred in denying Texas Tech’s plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment after it was sued by a former patient for health care liability claims. The patient filed suit after the statute of limitations had expired, and while he argues it should be extended or tolled due to the Covid pandemic, these limitations are a hard “jurisdictional deadline” when bringing cases against a governmental entity, and the patient has therefore “failed to satisfy a jurisdictional statutory prerequisite” to bringing a case. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: February 27, 2024, Case #: 08-23-00170-CV, Categories: Government, Health Care, Jurisdiction
J. Soto finds a lower court did not err in entering an order of deferred adjudication in an assault case. Defendant appealed, arguing she had not in fact waived her right to a jury trial, but while the record does not include a written waiver of her jury rights, there was nonetheless evidence that defendant “knowingly and intelligently” waived a jury trial, including in a recitation and in an email exchange between her defense attorney and a prosecutor. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: January 31, 2024, Case #: 08-22-00161-CR, Categories: Jury, Probation, Due Process
J. Soto finds a lower court ruled correctly when it determined through summary judgment that an insurance company could file an interpleader action in a case stemming from a deadly vehicle accident. That insurance company, which said it was “ready, willing and able” to pay out liability coverage, found itself in the middle of a dispute between two relatives of a deceased victim over how they should receive payment. One relative raised a variety of claims disputing the interpleader action, but precedent shows that “Texas has long recognized the equitable remedy of interpleader,“” and the insurer was right to interplead in these circumstances. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: January 29, 2024, Case #: 08-23-00054-CV, Categories: Civil Procedure, Insurance, Vehicle
J. Soto finds a lower court ruled correctly in denying an engineering company’s motion to dismiss after it was sued following a pipeline explosion by an oil company, which argued the engineering company had done “deficient surveying work” prior to laying a new pipeline. The engineering company argued the oil company did not obtain a valid certificate of merit prior to suing because the certificate came from an engineer rather than a surveyor, but in fact the oil company’s claims concerned allegedly negligent “professional engineering services, not professional land surveying services.” Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: January 26, 2024, Case #: 08-23-00029-CV, Categories: Civil Procedure, Negligence, Experts
J. Soto finds a lower court did not err in sentencing defendant to life in the shooting death of another person. Defendant argued his rights were infringed by comments made during the trial, including by a cop who testified during guilt-innocence that the shooting was “absolutely not” justified, but even if this opinion testimony was improperly admitted, it “does not result in constitutional error,” not least because defendant did not timely object to it, and the jury rejected defendant’s mitigating arguments despite receiving proper instructions. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: January 18, 2024, Case #: 08-23-00115-CR, Categories: Sentencing, Due Process, Jury Instructions
J. Soto finds a lower court ruled correctly in denying a writ of attachment sought by defendant, who wished to compel a subpoenaed witness to testify in court after defendant was charged with assault and other crimes. That witness, who provided incriminating evidence against defendant during a police investigation, was also heard on bodycam using a racial slur to refer to defendant, who argued the court should have forced her to testify in person so that “the jury could observe her demeanor and judge her credibility when questioned about her racist statement” under the theory that her perception of events could have been tainted by racial bias. But the witness was not the only person to offer incriminating evidence against defendant, and her virtual testimony nonetheless showed that she “lied in court and used the racial slur.” Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: January 16, 2024, Case #: 08-23-00091-CR, Categories: Evidence, Due Process, Witnesses
J. Soto remands, with instructions to dismiss, several cases including this dispute stemming from arrests of migrants for criminal trespass under Texas’ “Operation Lone Star,” a state policy ostensibly intended to “deter[] illegal border crossing” and “prevent criminal activity along the border.” Defendant argued the charge was unconstitutional, including because the state was “selectively prosecuting men, and not similarly situated women.”
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: January 12, 2024, Case #: 08-23-00233-CR, Categories: Immigration, Trespass, Equal Protection
J. Soto remands, with instructions to dismiss, several cases including this dispute stemming from arrests of migrants for criminal trespass under Texas’ “Operation Lone Star,” a state policy ostensibly intended to “deter[] illegal border crossing” and “prevent criminal activity along the border.” Defendant argued the charge was unconstitutional, including because the state was “selectively prosecuting men, and not similarly situated women.”
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: January 12, 2024, Case #: 08-23-00301-CR, Categories: Immigration, Trespass, Equal Protection
J. Soto remands, with instructions to dismiss, several cases including this dispute stemming from arrests of migrants for criminal trespass under Texas’ “Operation Lone Star,” a state policy ostensibly intended to “deter[] illegal border crossing” and “prevent criminal activity along the border.” Defendant argued the charge was unconstitutional, including because the state was “selectively prosecuting men, and not similarly situated women.”
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: January 12, 2024, Case #: 08-23-00295-CR, Categories: Immigration, Trespass, Equal Protection
J. Soto finds a lower court erred in denying an energy company’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit after it was sued by another energy company alleging nuisance and other claims after it was unable to access minerals from a mineral lease due to a disposal well run by the first company. The first company is correct that the suing company lacks standing because issues with the disposal well became apparent long before the suing company attempted to drill, and therefore its current claims are unripe. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: December 29, 2023, Case #: 08-23-00010-CV, Categories: Property, Real Estate, Jurisdiction
J. Soto finds a lower court erred in its reading of a deed in a mineral rights dispute. The “only interpretation of the deed harmonizing all its provisions” is one in which both parties bear the burden of paying out a “non-participating royalty interest” owned by the state, and therefore the lower court erred in granting summary judgment to appellee company relieving it of this burden. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: December 27, 2023, Case #: 08-23-00140-CV, Categories: Energy, Property, Real Estate
J. Soto finds a lower court erred in denying a migrant's pretrial writ of habeas corpus after he was arrested for trespassing as part of Texas' push to deter undocumented migration on the southern border. An appeals court has already ruled the practice is likely unconstitutional since the state is targeting men. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: December 20, 2023, Case #: 08-23-00285-CR, Categories: Constitution, Immigration, Trespass
J. Soto finds a lower court ruled correctly in favor of a seller in a convoluted real estate dispute. The seller, who was ordered to pay back the buyer for a property sale after it became clear that she was not in fact the owner of the property in question, has already provided “legally and factually sufficient evidence” that both she and buyer held the “mistaken belief” that she owned the property, whereas the buyer has not provided adequate evidence of fraud. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: December 15, 2023, Case #: 08-23-00165-CV, Categories: Fraud, Real Estate, Contract
J. Soto remands to lower court a case involving a noncitizen male arrested for trespassing as part of Operation Lone Star. The migrant argued that he was selectively prosecuted because of his gender — and because of a recent Fourth Court of Appeals ruling, his case, like those of other similarly situated migrants, is entitled to review.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: December 12, 2023, Case #: 08-23-00196-CR, Categories: Immigration, Civil Rights
J. Soto dismisses, for lack of jurisdiction, an appeal in a premises liability suit. A woman obtained a no-answer default judgment against a bar after she injured herself there, and while the bar is now attempting to appeal, there is not a final appealable judgment and “no constitutional or statutory grant of jurisdiction permits us to review it.”
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: December 11, 2023, Case #: 08-23-00110-CV, Categories: Tort, Damages, Premises Liability
J. Soto remands to lower court several cases, including this one, stemming from arrests of migrants for criminal trespass under Texas’ “Operation Lone Star,” a state policy ostensibly intended to “deter[] illegal border crossing” and “prevent criminal activity along the border.” Defendant argued the charge was unconstitutional, including because the state was “selectively prosecuting men, and not similarly situated women.” Following a favorable ruling from the Fourth Court of Appeals in a similar case, defendants facing such charges are entitled to reconsideration.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: November 30, 2023, Case #: 08-23-00204-CR, Categories: Constitution, Immigration, Trespass
J. Soto remands to lower court several cases, including this one, stemming from arrests of migrants for criminal trespass under Texas’ “Operation Lone Star,” a state policy ostensibly intended to “deter[] illegal border crossing” and “prevent criminal activity along the border.” Defendant argued the charge was unconstitutional, including because the state was “selectively prosecuting men, and not similarly situated women.” Following a favorable ruling from the Fourth Court of Appeals in a similar case, defendants facing such charges are entitled to reconsideration.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: November 30, 2023, Case #: 08-23-00201-CR, Categories: Constitution, Immigration, Trespass
J. Soto finds a lower court ruled correctly in convicting defendant of sexual abuse of his stepdaughter. In both this and another case stemming from the abuse, defendant argues a lower court inappropriately admitted expert testimony that he said was overly opinionated, but defendant did not adequately preserve error or show that his case was improperly harmed by the testimony. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: November 30, 2023, Case #: 08-23-00093-CR, Categories: Sex Offender, Experts, Child Victims