This morning, the Third Court of Appeals issued an opinion in a case involving a Municipal Utility District’s attempts to enforce restrictive covenants which, according to the MUD, the trial court and the Third Court of Appeals, prevented a couple from parking a thirty foot travel trailer at their Anderson Mill home and from building a “trailer-port” to house the trailer. The trial court had entered judgment on behalf of the MUD but had chosen not to award any attorneys’ fees to the MUD; the Third Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment on the merits but reversed the refusal to award fees. According to the Court of Appeals, when a MUD brings a restrictive covenant suit under Section 54.237 of the Water Code and prevails, attorneys’ fees must be awarded, and the trial court has no discretion in the matter. The case also discusses the evidentiary standard by which courts of appeals review a jury’s decision on whether or not an enforcing party has waived the right to seek to enforce a restrictive covenant. Cause No. 03-04-00369-CV

This morning, the Third Court of Appeals issued a new opinion in an appeal of an administrative hearing of a Public Utility Commission decision from a fuel reconciliation hearing conducted pursuant to the Public Utility Regulatory Act. The opinion discusses the regulatory scheme by which an electricity provider can request the right to charge back certain costs to consumers. In other words, we will not offer detailed discussion of the opinion, but will instead simply refer you to it. Cause No. 03-03-00628-CV The Court also issued a memorandum opinion in an appeal of a trial court’s decision to grant a no-evidence motion for summary judgment filed by a Defendant in an asbestos case. The no-evidence motion was based on the plaintiff’s deposition testimony that while he had used drywall joint compound products manufactured by the Defendant, there was no specific indication that he had been exposed to the Defendant’s products that actually contained asbestos (the Defendant in question had, over the years, made products both containing and not containing asbestos). The Plaintiff died less than three weeks after his deposition; during his thirty year career he had been exposed to a large number of asbestos-containing products, so, according to the Court of Appeals, his estate could not produce a scintilla of evidence that it was this particular defendant’s product which caused the plaintiff’s cancer. Cause No. 03-04-00150-CV Finally, the Court also issued memorandum opinions in two termination of parental rights cases and a child custody case.

What is Airsoft? Here’s a quick description: Airsoft is a sport where players engage in simulated gun combat, (not too dissimilar to paintball), with high powered BB weapons. If you’re a parent, trying to understand why your child keeps asking about airsoft, then you might want to read our Parents Guide to Airsoft. It should help you understand airsoft from a parental point of view. However, the following post will still be helpful to you. Here you will find TheEliteDrone’s best airsoft guns offers and reviews. Airsoft Basics Whilst many players don’t like comparing airsoft to paintball, it’s the closest thing that can be compared. Airsoft, is similar to paintball, in that teams of people group together into organised teams at a dedicated and insured field, and shoot small projectiles at each other for fun and sport. Where airsoft differs from paintball is that airsoft is much more focussed towards military simulation. Where paintball markers don’t always look like “real” guns, airsoft RIFs (Realistic Imitation Firearms) are 99% of the time, modelled after genuine firearms and are almost indistinguishable from the real thing. The players will also, for the most part, be more dedicated to dressing in more realistic military gear, including vests and sometimes helmets, in order to look more “realistic”. If you’re reading this, and just seeing it as a bunch of weirdos running around playing with toy guns, I implore that you read on. You will almost definitely know an airsofter in your life, you may not know they have this hobby. You owe it to yourself to not look ignorant to things other people might enjoy. The Rules of Airsoft Just like video games or paintball, there are different “games” of airsoft you can play. Such as capture the flag, team deathmatch, last man standing etc etc. We won’t go into these, but it’s important to understand that there’s a HUGE range of different ways the sport is played to keep it interesting. Safety The first thing to know about airsoft is that safety is the first priority. If it’s not safe, it’s not airsoft. All players must wear a MINIMUM of high-impact rated eye protection (ratings vary depending on country) and most recommend a full-face mask. Secondly, all airsoft guns are limited in their power (at least in the UK). Airsoft guns capable of full auto (multiple shots on 1 trigger pull) are limited to 1.14 joules of energy on most sites.  Guns that fire one shot per trigger pull are limited to 1.68 joules. Weapons which require “cocking” between shots, such as bolt action sniper rifles are limited to 2.3joules. To put that into perspective, most paintball markers shoot with an energy between 14-16 Joules. All guns are “tested” before the games and any guns that are too powerful are not allowed to be used. How do you know if you’re hit? One of the best things about airsoft is that it’s a sport based on honesty. When you’re shot by another player, there’s no mark from paint, so it’s down to the player and their honesty to call themselves out. Anyone not willing to play properly is not welcome. This breeds an incredibly friendly and honest game which is rarely ruined by cheaters. What else? Those are the absolute basic rules, but there are loads of more in-depth ones which make the game what it is. Dead players don’t talk (if you’re dead, you can’t give away another player’s position), No Blind firing (it’s not safe to shoot where you can’t see), etc. All of this is covered in the safety briefings at the beginning of the day. Types of Airsoft There are a number of different types of airsoft, each focusing on a different aspect of the game. Skirmish Primarily there’s skirmishing. Simply, two teams of players, shooting at each other through some kind of combat scenario. This is the most common form of airsoft and is how most players get started in the sport. Milsim Similar to the above but focussed on Military Simulation. Teams are highly organised, with dedicated command hierarchies and roles, games are usually much longer (sometimes days) and more focussed on realism. We’ve got a whole blog on “What is MilSim”, here. AIPSC AIPSC is a target shooting sport, using airsoft guns to shoot at targets whilst timed/scored. It stems from when in some countries firearms were banned, the original IPSC (International Pistol Shooting Championships) was quickly replaced with AIPSC. Speedsoft Speedsoft is the airsoft equivalent of paintball’s speedball. A fast paced tournament-like game which throws the military aspect out of the window and instead focusses on fast shooting, fast movement in shooting “arenas”. This form of airsoft is relatively new, but is growing in popularity.

The Third Court of Appeals had a busy morning today. This morning, the Third Court of Appeals issued a new opinion in an appeal of the Texas State Board of Medical Examiner’s decision to sanction a physician for conduct stemming from 13 year-old allegations against the physician. The opinion discusses the concept of due process in the context of state agency prosecutorial delay, and it ultimately concludes that a physician’s right to due process prevented the Board, in this case, from sanctioning him for conduct that allegedly occurred 13 years before the Board proceeding at issue. Cause No. 03-03-00698-CV The Court also issued an opinion in an appeal of an insurance coverage dispute arising out of a homeowner’s mold claim against her homeowner’s insurance carrier. Both parties appealed the judgment, and the opinion discusses issues ranging from challenging jurors for cause to spoliation instructions, as well as the primary issues in the case, damages for a carrier’s failure to properly pay a mold claim and calculation of penalties for a carrier’s missed deadlines under Article 21.55 of the Insurance Code. Cause No. 03-04-00171-CV The Court dismissed what it characterized as an improper interlocutory appeal of a trial court’s refusal to dismiss a medical negligence claim against an acupuncturist who allegedly negligently treated a patient’s asthma. The acupuncturist had asked the trial court to dismiss the case on the basis that the plaintiff’s expert was not qualified to opine as to the standard of care in acupuncture cases. Since the trial court denied a motion brought under Section 74.351(l) of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code, and not Section 74.351(b), and since the trial court did not grant any relief under 74.351(l), the Third Court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal. The opinion offers what ought to be a useful explanation of motions to dismiss medical negligence cases on expert report grounds under the 2003 statute, and what remedies are available and not available (or, more accurately, when they may or may not be available) when the trial court makes its decision. Cause No. 03-04-00396-CV Finally, the Court also issued memorandum opinions in a divorce case and an appeal of a Railroad Commission decision to grant a permit for a saltwater disposal well.