Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of October 9, 2006

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.

State v. Laird, No. 02-05-00312-CR (Oct. 12, 2006) (McCoy, J., joined by Walker, J.; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion).: Held: The trial court erred in quashing the information, which charged that Appellee did "cause, allow, or permit outdoor burning," because the language "burned domestic and non-domestic waste including an appliance and electrical wire" tracked the language of the statute and included sufficient information to notify Appellee of the charges against him. The information sufficiently negated all exceptions to the offense by referencing specific sections of the Texas Administrative Code where the exceptions are found.; Dissent: Even though the information tracked the statute, the trial court correctly quashed it because it is too vague to provide requisite notice of the charges against Appellee to allow him to adequately prepare a defense or to prevent subsequent prosecution for the same act. From the notice, Appellee cannot determine whether he was charged with burning something or allowing it to be burned, what exactly the thing was, or where it was allegedly burned.
Niu v. Revcor Molded Prods. Co., No. 02-05-00104-CV (Oct. 12, 2006) (Gardner, J., joined by Cayce, C.J., and Walker, J.).: Held: The trial court properly granted summary judgement in favor of employer/Appellee on employee/Appellant's employment discrimination and retaliation claims because Appellee's summary judgment evidence was sufficient to establish a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for Appellant's termination as a matter of law. Additionally, Appellant failed to raise a fact issue as to whether Appellee's nondiscriminatory reason for the termination was merely a pretext as Appellant's summary judgment evidence did not relate to the circumstances surrounding Appellant’s termination.
In re C.S., No. 02-06-00116-CV (Oct. 12, 2006) (Holman, J., joined by Livingston and Walker, JJ.).: Held: Evidence was legally sufficient at hearing seeking authorization of psychoactive medication under section 574.106 of Texas Health and Safety Code to show, under clear and convincing evidence standard, that patient suffering from schizoaffective disorder lacked the capacity to make a decision regarding the administration of medication and that its administration was in her best interest. However, there was factually insufficient evidence that patient was under a court order to receive inpatient mental health services.