Second Court of Appeals

Week of March 3, 2015 

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of March 3, 2015

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.


Griswold v. EOG Res., Inc., No. 02-14-00200-CV (Mar. 5, 2015) (Walker, J., joined by Gardner and Meier, JJ.).

Held:  Applying the binding precedent of Pich v. Lankford, 157 Tex. 335, 343, 302 S.W.2d 645, 650 (1957), we hold that the save-and-except clause in the Caswell Deed and in the Griswold Deed excepted from the conveyance a 1/2 interest in the oil, gas, and other minerals in plain and unambiguous language so that title to that 1/2 interest remained in the grantor.


Whitemon v. State, No. 02-13-00380-CR (Mar. 5, 2015) (Dauphinot, J., joined by Gardner, J.; Walker, J., concurs without opinion).

Held:  Even if the trial court erred by prohibiting three voir dire questions concerning Appellant’s “mere presence” theory on the basis that they were improper commitment questions, such error was harmless because the trial court allowed this question, “Would you agree that the State has to show for possession that a person intentionally and knowingly had the substance or exercised control over it?” to be asked of a juror, and Appellant does not show that he unsuccessfully tried to ask it of any other juror.