Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of January 23, 2012

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.

Aston Meadows, Ltd. v. Devon Energy Prod. Co., No. 02-10-00370-CV (Jan. 26, 2012) (Livingston, C.J., joined by Dauphinot, J., and William Brigham (Senior Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment)).: Held: The trial court did not err by granting Appellees' summary judgment and denying Appellants'. The evidence proved as a matter of law that Appellants had constructive notice of the oil and gas lease affecting their property pursuant to section 11.001(a) of the property code.

Royalco Oil & Gas Corp. v. Stockhome Trading Corp., No. 02-10-00455-CV (Jan. 26, 2012) (Dauphinot, J., joined by Walker and McCoy, JJ.).: Held: Because the salt water disposal well lease at issue in this case was not a mineral lease, Texas oil and gas law does not apply. Under Texas landlord-tenant law, the lessee's transfer of its interest to Appellant was a sublease, not a partial assignment. The trial court therefore did not err by granting summary judgment that Appellee's termination of its lease with the lessee also properly terminated Appellant's sublease.

Lozano v. State, No. 02-09-00296-CR (Jan. 26, 2012) (Gardner, J., joined by Livingston, C.J., and Meier, J.).: Held: Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence is sufficient to support Appellant's murder conviction, and the jury charge properly required a unanimous verdict. Also, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the State's motion dismissing Appellant's prior indictment and related testimony. Finally, Appellant forfeited his complaints that testimony about another witness's alibi constituted backdoor hearsay and violated the Confrontation Clause.