PV International Corp. v. Turner

Texas Supreme Court

PV International Corp. v. Turner

778 S.W.2d 865, 33 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 20, 1989 Tex. LEXIS 109

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 4, 1989

DocketC-8529

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 778 S.W.2d 865 (PV International Corp. v. Turner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

PV International Corp. v. Turner, 778 S.W.2d 865, 33 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 20, 1989 Tex. LEXIS 109 (Tex. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this action for fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and alienation of affections, the trial court admitted evidence obtained by petitioner, R.W. For-sythe, by a wiretapping device which For-sythe hooked up to his residential tele *866 phone. He recorded several conversations between his wife, Barbara Forsythe, and respondent, Malcolm Turner. The court of appeals held that the tape recorded telephone conversations between Barbara For-sythe and Malcolm Turner constituted an illegal wiretap under 18 U.S.C. § 2515 and that admission of these tapes into evidence was reversible error. Accordingly, the court of appeals reversed and remanded to the trial court for a new trial. 765 S.W.2d 455.

The court of appeals declined to follow Simpson v. Simpson, 490 F.2d 803 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 897, 95 S.Ct. 176, 42 L.Ed.2d 141 (1974), which is factually analogous to the instant case. The court in Simpson held that § 2515 is “not sufficiently definite and specific to create a federal cause of action” for a former husband’s use of a wiretapping device to intercept wife’s conversations in their marital home. Id. at 810.

In denying the application for writ of error, we are not to be construed as approving or disapproving the holding of the court of appeals on the admissibility of the tape recorded telephone conversations.

The application for writ of error is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this action for fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and alienation of affections, the trial court admitted evidence obtained by petitioner, R.W. For-sythe, by a wiretapping device which For-sythe hooked up to his residential tele *866 phone. He recorded several conversations between his wife, Barbara Forsythe, and respondent, Malcolm Turner. The court of appeals held that the tape recorded telephone conversations between Barbara For-sythe and Malcolm Turner constituted an illegal wiretap under 18 U.S.C. § 2515 and that admission of these tapes into evidence was reversible error. Accordingly, the court of appeals reversed and remanded to the trial court for a new trial. 765 S.W.2d 455.

The court of appeals declined to follow Simpson v. Simpson, 490 F.2d 803 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 897, 95 S.Ct. 176, 42 L.Ed.2d 141 (1974), which is factually analogous to the instant case. The court in Simpson held that § 2515 is “not sufficiently definite and specific to create a federal cause of action” for a former husband’s use of a wiretapping device to intercept wife’s conversations in their marital home. Id. at 810.

In denying the application for writ of error, we are not to be construed as approving or disapproving the holding of the court of appeals on the admissibility of the tape recorded telephone conversations.

The application for writ of error is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

778 S.W.2d 865, 33 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 20, 1989 Tex. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pv-international-corp-v-turner-tex-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack