Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of November 26, 2007

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 can be accessed by clicking the cause number then clicking View HTML Version of Opinion.

Denton County v. Beynon, No. 02-07-00066-CV (Nov. 29, 2007) (Holman, J., joined by Gardner and McCoy, JJ.).: Held: The trial court did not err by denying Appellant's plea to the jurisdiction. Because a floodgate arm that was unsecured and facing oncoming traffic with the tip of the arm positioned approximately three feet from the edge of the roadway constituted a special defect, Appellees invoked the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction by establishing a waiver of Appellant's governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act.
Turley v. State, No. 02-07-00040-CR (Nov. 29, 2007) (per curiam).: Held: Appellant pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea bargain honored by the trial court, to misdemeanor DWI and later moved for a new trial claiming that his guilty plea was involuntary. Because Appellant did not have permission to appeal the trial court's refusal to hold a hearing on the motion for new trial, his first issue is dismissed. The trial court also properly denied Appellant's pretrial motion to suppress because the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Appellant based on a citizen-informant's tip. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.
Rischon Dev. Corp. v. City of Keller, No. 02-06-00103-CV (Nov. 29, 2007) (Gardner, J., joined by Holman and McCoy, JJ.).: Held: The trial court did not err by rendering a take-nothing judgment on Appellant's takings and exaction claims because Appellant consented to Appellee's zoning and platting requirements when Appellant itself proposed, adopted without objection, or agreed to all of the complained-of requirements.
Keehn v. State, No. 02-06-00047-CR (Nov. 29, 2007) (op. on remand) (Walker, J., joined by Livingston and McCoy, JJ.).: Held: Law enforcement officers had a lawful right to be on Appellant's driveway when they observed a propane tank in the back of a van that was parked on Appellant's driveway in front of his home. The officers had probable cause to believe that the tank with bluish-green discoloration contained anhydrous ammonia, was not an approved container for the transport of anhydrous ammonia, and accordingly, was associated with criminal activity. Consequently, the plain view doctrine applied and the search of the van and subsequent seizure of the tank did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution or article I, section 9 of the Texas constitution.