Second Court of Appeals
Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of July 11, 2022.
NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.
Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.
Fisher v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 02-21-00369-CV (July 14, 2022) (Wallach, J., joined by Sudderth, C.J., and Birdwell, J.); Payne v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 02-21-00425-CV (July 14, 2022) (Wallach, J., joined by Sudderth, C.J., and Birdwell, J.).
Held: The Federal Employers Liability Act does not bar the release of future claims arising from exposure to asbestos when the risks of that exposure were within the contemplation of the parties at the time the release was signed.
Sherman v. Sherman, No. 02-21-00172-CV (July 14, 2022) (Wallach, J., joined by Birdwell and Bassel, JJ.).
Held: The trial court abused its discretion by ordering Appellant to pay Appellee spousal maintenance upon the dissolution of their marriage because Appellee was awarded sufficient property in the divorce decree to provide for her minimum reasonable needs. After subtracting Appellee’s liabilities, the awarded assets are sufficient to cover Appellee’s monthly expenses for four years and nine months.
Blankenship v. State, No. 02-20-00157-CR (July 14, 2022) (Sudderth, C.J., joined by Womack, J.; Walker, J., dissents with opinion).
Held: Appellant was convicted of the Class A misdemeanor offense of unlawful burning, but there was insufficient evidence that he burned a Class A substance, i.e., “heavy oils, asphaltic materials, potentially explosive materials, or chemical wastes.” Appellant admitted burning plywood, and although a reasonable factfinder could have concluded that the plywood was “treated lumber”—a Class C substance—a reasonable factfinder could not have concluded that it was “chemical waste”—a Class A substance.
Dissent: The term “treated lumber” has acquired a technical definition as lumber that has been treated with chemicals for preservative or fire-retardant purposes. The majority’s broad definition of “treated lumber” would lead to the absurd result of citizens’ being criminally liable for burning wood products beyond that which the legislature intended. Because the evidence was insufficient to prove that the defendant’s plywood was treated in this manner, his conviction should be reversed.
Ex parte Floyd, No. 02-22-00004-CR (July 14, 2022) (Bassel, J., joined by Sudderth, C.J., and Kerr, J.).
Held: Appellant’s death-penalty capital murder trial was halted when the trial court declared a mistrial due to a dwindling number of qualified jurors. Appellant objected to being tried again, claiming that the mistrial should have been granted because of State misconduct in suppressing evidence favorable to him. First, the mistrial was granted and was manifestly necessary because a death-penalty defendant cannot legally consent to being tried by a ten-person jury. Second, even if there had been no problem with the number of jurors, Appellant could not show that the State committed any misconduct with the specific intent to avoid an acquittal. Therefore, the law does not bar retrying Appellant for capital murder.