Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of May 25, 2009

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.

Ahmad v. State,   No. 02-08-00008-CR   (May 28, 2009)   (Gardner, J., joined by Dauphinot and Walker, JJ.). [Note: This opinion was withdrawn August 26, 2009.]

Held:   A World War II “practice bomb” falls within the penal code’s definition of “hoax bomb.” Limitations did not bar Appellant’s prosecution; the first indictment—which failed to state an offense—tolled limitations on the second indictment—which alleged possession of a hoax bomb—because both indictments arose from the same conduct, namely, Appellant’s burying the practice bomb and then pretending to find it.

Eisen v. Four Sevens Operating Co.,   No. 02-08-00265-CV    (May 28, 2009)   (mem. op.) (Meier, J., joined by Gardner, J.; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion).  [Note: Both opinions are at the same link in one document.]

Held:   The trial court did not err by granting Appellee’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment because Appellants failed to produce summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact that Appellee had actual knowledge of the danger or condition that resulted in Paul Eisen’s death.

Dissent:   Appellants raised genuine issues of fact concerning Appellee’s actual knowledge of the dangers and conditions that resulted in Paul Eisen’s death, including the company man’s role in requiring consecutive twenty- to twenty-three-hour workdays that affected judgment and safety and his role in the actions that resulted in the fatal explosion.

« Return to Case Summaries Home Page «