Second Court of Appeals

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of May 13, 2019.

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.

Strait v. Savannah Court P’ship, No. 02-18-00036-CV (May 16, 2019) (Sudderth, C.J., joined by Gabriel and Pittman, JJ.).

Held:  The trial court erred by granting summary judgment against Appellants following the filing of competing motions for summary judgment.  As to the first conveyance at issue, a fact issue precluded the application of the strip-and-gore doctrine because the alleged strip was not isolated from the grantor’s adjoining, retained property and could be more accurately described as a long narrow arm or appendage, rather than a strip.  As to the subsequent conveyance, a gap in summary judgment proof existed in the competing title claims to the disputed strip of land, again precluding the application of the strip-and-gore doctrine or the centerline presumption.  Because of this gap in proof, summary judgment was not appropriate, and because all the remaining claims and requested relief turned on the resolution of the title claims, the trial court also erred by granting summary judgment as to the remaining claims.  Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s final judgment, including the award of attorney’s fees, and all underlying summary judgments and remand the case for further consistent proceedings.

Martin v. State, No. 02-18-00333-CR (May 16, 2019) (Birdwell, J., joined by Kerr and Bassel, JJ.).

Held:  As a matter of first impression, firefighters who saw drug paraphernalia in plain view after extinguishing an apartment fire could lawfully call police in to observe the scene because certain conditions were met.  Where a lawful intrusion by a firefighter has already occurred, and the firefighter has already observed contraband in plain view, the invasion of privacy is not increased by allowing an officer to enter the residence and observe or seize the contraband.  Thus, the police may step into the shoes of the firefighter to seize the contraband without first obtaining a warrant.