Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Cerny v. Marathon Oil Corp.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided October 7, 2015No. 04-14-00650-CVPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLuz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The Cernys’ nuisance claims are not based solely upon the migration of hazardous chemicals and wastes onto their property causing medical “symptoms,” but also upon excessive noise, foul odors, dust pollution, and abnormal traffic interfering with the use and enjoyment of their property. Because determining the source of the latter types of nuisance claims is within common knowledge and experience, and the record contains some admissible evidence connecting the alleged foul odors to Plains’s conduct, I dissent in part to the majority’s judgment.

The Cernys pled claims against appel-lees for…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Jelinek v. CasasTexas Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Morgan v. Compugraphic Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Guevara v. FerrerTexas Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Schneider National Carriers, Inc. v. BatesTexas Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Havner v. E-Z Mart Stores, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1992

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API