*1 rule, juvenile proceedings [confidential] alleged. keeping this the once offense Were probable right juvenile public cause for a has a [but] court found are laudable.... offense, it order the entire juvenile less serious could committed know about crimes making finding offenders.”); Oregonian transferred without ex rel. Pub- State Deiz, statute for for each offense as mandated lishing Co. v. 289 Or. P.2d (1980) protection juvenile. right For this reason (noting public that has a “the argument. accept we decline State’s press,” of access co-extensive with application of finding unconstitutional the juvenile Inasmuch as the this case juvenile press statute exclude probable to find cause exists to failed that proceedings). offense, each believe that R.A.G. committed application grants petitioner’s the Court error, judgment of the
writ of reverses the appeals, the order of the
court of vacates court,
juvenile the case to the and remands
juvenile proceedings court for further consis- remand, juve- opinion.
tent On
nile court is free to reconsider State’s
petition, charges and dis- transfer others, charges to the miss or to transfer all COMPANY, CATTLE court. Petitioner’s com- criminal district Petitioner, INC.,
plaints regarding the issuance and service correctly resolved summons were v. peti- appeals. not address court of We need regarding complaints other tioner’s Texas, Respondent. STATE proceedings close its court’s refusal to No. D-2481. public. Texas. Supreme Court
DOGGETT, J., concurs. DOGGETT, Justice, concurring. 24, 1993. Nov. join
I Court’s and write last
separately to ensure sentence R.A.G., ac- not misconstrued.
thereof is argues the trial court juvenile,
cused press arbitrarily allowing the to be
acted concerning his hearing certifica-
present adult, excluding while
tion to stand trial as properly public. The court did not abuse
concluded the trial court permitting the attendance
its discretion
The instant
press.
challenge press been exclud- should have
whether
ed, been public should have not whether not, there- Today’s opinion should
included.
fore, propriety on the be read as a comment hearings excluding public from such constitutionality of section 64.08
nor on the See, e.g., S. Family Code. Susan
Greenebaum, Access Juvenile Conditional A Restraint or Proceedings: Prior Court Contemp.L. Solution?, 44 J.
Viable Urban (1993) (“The arguments for policy
201 appeals, ment of the court of and remand this cause to that court for consideration of the sufficiency points. State’s factual Company operation Cattle commenced F/R feeding July facility of the calf 1990. The facility located two a half miles south Lingleville. approx- of the There are town imately 21 dairies within a three mile radius of the site. Each of these dairies have F/R full-grown average approximately an dairy cows. buying operation consisted of calves
F/R’s raising born at the local dairies and them to weight pounds. a of 250 to 300 The newborn kept 5-by-8 calves were hutches foot sloping kept roof. three calves to a F/R days, 55 to 60 hutch for at time which open pens. were moved the calves When weight reach desired at their about four months, they were sold to feed lots or back suit, opera- to the dairies. At the time of 5,900 any tion maintained about calves at one time.
The Texas Air Control received nu- complaints regarding odor merous associ- John Turney, B. Austin and Robert J. facility. ated with As a result of these F/R’s Glasgow, Stephenville, petitioner. for complaints, brought State suit on be- Cross, Ken Latting, Suzanne Mo- and Dan against seeking half of the Board F/R rales, Austin, respondent. for injunction penalties grounds and civil on the calf-raising facility vio- F/R’s OPINION by releasing lated the Texas Clean Air Act permit. air contaminants without a GONZALEZ, Justice. Respondent’s for rehearing hearing petition motion over- At on the for State’s 21, 1993, ruled. Our opinion April injunction, temporary is with- court consid- trial following drawn and the in its only plea substituted ered of the F/R’s place. evidentiary hearing, court. After a full findings opera- made court that F/R’s This application ease involves the of the normal, usual, tion is and natural the area calf-feeding Clean Air Act1 to a facili- situated, locality where it ty County. sought Erath The State resulting operation odor is odor F/R’s enjoin Company’s operations Cattle un- F/R from a occurs in na- der the Clean Air Act. The held trial court ture, and that the odor is affected or con- product that the emissions natu- human to an extent trolled devices ral from regulation excluded vicinity. Specifical- usual in normal and Act, and dismissed the suit for want ly, the trial found: The court of deter- Defendant, law, Company oper- mined that as a matter of Cattle dairy comes purview within the for calves ates a confinement 219, approximately reversed and on side of FM proceed- remanded further the east ings. approxi- judg- Lingleville south of S.W.2d 303. We reverse the 2.5 miles (Ver- 1992). §§ 1. Tex. Health 382.001-141 non Dublin,
mately approximately gener- in Erath amount of waste 7 miles north dairy approximately full County. ated at grown dairy cows. 2. Defendant commenced July present approximately site its on *3 normal, operation calf 16. Defendant’s 1990. locality in the area and usual and natural operation conducted Defendant 3. where it situated. acquired from raising calves consists Any resulting from Defendant’s 17. odor at time days dairies for 110 to 120 which produced from a operation is odor sold they are returned to dairies or nature, or occurs in affected buyers. other by human devices controlled arrival, 4. After the calves are housed in vicinity. usual in the normal and extent approximately 56 to 60 wooden hutches for the Board’s trial then dismissed days placed pens. at which time are grounds that the lacked suit on the immediately to the north property 5. facil- because the operation is the site of Defendant’s odors and there- ity producing natural dairy. 520-head Act. Clean Air fore was excluded from addi- approximately There are seven 6. and remanded The court of reversed Defen- dairy tional between proceed court to the cause to the trial Lingleville. operation and dant’s its conclu- complaints, based on the State’s dairy op- are approximately 7. There law, that, the odor at sion as a matter of erations, average approximately with an pro- calf-feeding facility was not defendant’s each, ranches, horse 500 cows and three processes. by natural duced radius of approximately 3-mile
within operation. Defendant’s AIR ACT TEXAS CLEAN THE property and residence 8. The Pat Wilson at Tex. Act codified The Texas Clean Air mile approximately one-half east is located Safety §§ Its 382.001-141. Health & Code property. of Defendant’s purpose is: horse farm and 9. The McConnell Weldon approximately one-half state’s resources safeguard residence is located [T]o abating air operation. by controlling or pollution mile south of Defendant’s from of air contami- and emissions McCon- A leased Ronnie 10. residence nants, protection of consistent with approximate- is located across FM 219 nell welfare, health, physical public general yards operation, Defendant’s ly 100 enjoy- property, including the aesthetic farm where Mr. McConnell on the horse public of air resources ment works. visibility. adequate maintenance resi- Mary property Martin 11. The one-half approximately dence is located § The Act confers on Id. 382.002. operation. north of Defendant’s mile authority to accom- Board the Control through is located the control purposes 12. Another horse farm plish the Act’s vicinity operation. of Defendant’s of “air contaminants.” Tex. & Safe- Health 382.011(b).2 ty § An contaminant” “air opera- Code Defendant’s 13. The area which is defined as: agricultural. tion is located is rural 3, 1991, material, ap- matter, On October there were [Pjarticulate 14. radioactive 6,000 Defendant’s fa- smoke, calves at proximately mist, dust, fumes, vapor, gas, cility. odor, of those including any combination items, other than by processes generated by amount of waste 15. The 6,000 operation is natural. calves Defendant’s Commission, July pursuant Act of was abolished on Air Control Board The Texas 1.086, duties, C.S., 1, 1993, Tex. powers, Leg., ch. September and all its 1st 72nd responsibilities, functions transferred Gen.Laws Resource Conservation to the Texas Natural 382.003(2) finding large concentration such a Tex. Health & added).3 (emphasis The statute ex- explicitly number of animals into such small area cludes normal or this produced by pro- vicinity.” emissions would not be usual in “natural cesses,” Thus, the leg- but does not elaborate Id. court held that there was what the uphold islature intended to exclude evidence court’s regulation. against legal dispute findings sufficiency The crux of fact as parties between meaning challenge. is over the phrase. Livestock, appeals opinions
Two court of have inter Southwest the Board ordered preted processes” language. holding facility of a “natural owner livestock Europak, Hunt, bring opera- take corrective measures to its Inc. v. 507 S.W.2d *4 1974, writ); regula- 884 tions the and (Tex.Civ.App. within Board’s rules no — Dallas upheld tions. trial court the Southwest and The Trucking Livestock Co. v. Board, order the Texas defendant’s contest to the 549 S.W.2d jurisdiction. n.r.e.). appeals court’s The court of (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler writ ref’d — reviewing the trial judgment In court’s followed Europak, County the of Hunt and the adopted the in Europak. test Southwest sought State prevent to the from defendant Livestock, 579 It upheld S.W.2d at 552. the constructing operating slaughter and a horse implied finding trial court’s the concen- and packing facility obtaining without first normal, usual, pens cattle tration of was not permit from the Air Control Board. the pens or natural the area where trial court temporary injunction. issued a well within located because were located appeals, In the court of Europak the took city in proximity limits close urban land position that the Act processes excludes all as uses such residences and small commer- that occur in nature. The the particularly susceptible cial enterprises State urged phrase the should mean strong odors. Id. that which is or ordinary natural usual in the In and Europak, both Southwest Livestock course experience. of court, the case tried to the trial and the was rejected The court of appeals inter- both appeals upheld findings courts of the of fact pretations urged parties the sole as the case, In present trial court. the the court of test, aspects and held that the Act embraced appeals disagreed with the court’s find- trial of both. The certainly court observed that ings: much agri-business of was intended be unusual, that it is- We hold abnormal subject but declined to construe location, regard to to concentrate without the processes statute to mean that all involv- 6,000 1,500 approximately baby in calves ing activity any human degree not are weaning pens. in small hutches and See natural processes. It pro- defined a “natural (Tex.Civ. Padgett, Smith v. 596 S.W.2d cess” as “one occurs in nature and is n.r.e.). App. refd writ — Beaumont affected or controlled human devices feeding at the defendant’s calf odor to an extent normal usual for the partic- facility pro not natural was ular area Id. at involved.” 891. The court dismissing in cesses. The trial court erred noted that it is normal in put Texas to live- petition. The Texas Clean Air State’s corral, pen stock in a strict that a applicable, and the Texas Con Act is number criterion not ulti- would work. It trol Board has mately upheld injunction court’s be- 303, 306.4 828 S.W.2d cause, “although directly which produces that, may be appeals odor one that occurs Thus court of held re- nature, the gardless vicinity, evidence is sufficient of so support of the confinement operation 3. The definition was al- consideration renumbered in fined livestock under 2.01, though language § remained raising the same. natural condi- was not the of cattle under 1991 Tex.Gen.Laws at 46. S.W.2d at 533. is not tions. 596 clear, however, entirely or not the court whether Padgett, appeals Smith v. court of held merely upholding appeals was a trial court purposes agricultural that for use classifi- taxes, property cation of for ad con- valorem processes. many area unnatu- human involvement with natural calves such small was interpretation light ral. contends that the court of is unwarranted This impermissibly its history.7 substituted view the legislative the Act’s reply fact facts for that finder. In its of “air contaminants” The definition brief, accepted State the definition of Safety Code section 382.- Health and Europak processes” “natural articulated 003(2) passed part as the Clean Air Livestock, argued that and Southwest but R.S., Leg., ch. 59th Act of Texas. issue of whether the odors F/R’s 2(A), pur- § 1683.8 Tex.Gen.Laws product of natural was a were the protecting pose of this Act was stated question correctly by of law decided pro- with the “consistent State appeals.5 argument, At court of oral health, general welfare and tection of normal disap- State went further and asked that we physical people, maximum property prove Europak and Southwest Livestock development full industrial employment give Board wherever there is not Odor was includ- of the State.” Id. the production human involvement with Id. contaminants.9 ed in the definition contaminant, or other air without odor 2(A). instructed The 1965 Act *5 regard to location. any regula- to in rules make allowances decline the State’s invitation to We and residential for differences between tions holdings depart Europak from of the 6(B). Id. other areas of the State. adopt holdings Southwest Livestock the argument, The State’s alternative is a to of these eases that location factor be Europak Live and Southwest that the test in determining pollu considered in whether court is also question of for the is a law stock “produced by processes tant was other than suggestion offers no problematic. The State presume language the natural.”6 We must apply. might As the standards court 382.003(2) what in Code section Health observed, a criterion Europak in the court by causes excluding produced natural not cattle would of based on the number of air contaminants was from the definition is a spectrum end the suffice. one of purpose. the to serve some At placed in statute involve remotely ranch with human located reading the would Given a literal statute feeding, and other fencing, ment limited virtually agricultural pursuits, and exempt end At the other typical ranching activities. purpose of the Act. The State’s defeat the is a located within spectrum feedlot interpretation extend language of this would city clearly interferes with farms, ranches, limits that jurisdiction the Board’s to all property. In be of their neighbors’ use pets regardless of where or households with gam- the located, tween, run would they definition include circumstances because meaning statutory in challenge set out finding limitation of a sufficien- in the face 382.003(2)). cy of section the evidence. Texas, 1967, Attorney prosecuted of 60th Air Act 5. General’s office has 8. Amended Clean 1941; R.S., 727, of Texas Air Laws proceedings Leg., these on behalf 1967 Tex.Gen ch. 726, R.S., 1979, Agri- 16, Department Leg., of ch. May Control Board. The Texas culture, however, 66th ofAct 27, 1985, 1787; May brief has filed an amicus curiae Act Laws 1979 Tex.Gen R.S., 637, generally position. supporting Laws Leg., in this 1985 Tex.Gen Court F/R’s ch. 69th C.S., 30, 1991, 2350; Leg., July 1st 72th Act of 3, 4. 1991 Tex.Gen Laws ch. Europak, is As location not sole 6. noted Europak Both test. S.W.2d at 891. 507 later, agri- arose the context of years Southwest Livestock the list two were added to 9. "Odors” clearly prong, pursuits satisfying virtually the first cultural legislature created same time holding occurring in Our though emissions nature. gins, exemption even for cotton affecting Board's should not be as construed sources of the worst were "one said that Bell, pollution. over industrial to man.” Norvell known 1086, Texas, 47 TEX.L.REV. Pollution Control (1969) (discussing history 1967 (rejecting Europak, & n. 62 See S.W.2d at 891 1095 1967, Texas, Leg., act); 60th processes "processes Act of oc- Clean Air definition of natural 2(A), 6(C), R.S., Tex.Gen.Laws §§ wholly apart curring from human intervention” ch. any if grounds leave little on the that it would ut, making so that ing typically an evaluation of natural process whether whether a activity, emissions are natural made unnatural due human inquiry is an best left to the fact finder. trial court should whether the activ- consider ity normal in- and usual the location us, appeals the case before the court of at 201. volved. S.W.2d accepted Europak and Southwest Live- standards, yet stock decided that the odors agree majority’s I ultimate While inherently pro- result of conclusion, clearly I would articulate more regardless cesses other than natural dispute. at the center this issue where located. disagree We that a court simply threshold issue in this case is who could make this determination as a matter of particular decides whether law. There is some evidence that use F/R’s makes involvement humans an otherwise is consistent with similar in the prov- natural unnatural.1 It is the area. this While factor alone does not estab- the trial whether ince of court determine law, position lish as a matter of it F/R’s activity an otherwise natural involves precludes appeals nevertheless court of is still natural or has unnatu- humans become overturning finding purposes ral for of the Act. legal sufficiency challenge. court on a Ac- cordingly, we remand case to the SPECTOR, Justice, dissenting. remaining to review the State’s April dissenting opinion delivered sufficiency points.10 factual 1993, withdrawn, following sub- place. in its stituted PHILLIPS, C.J., HECHT, *6 CORNYN, JJ., join HIGHTOWER and in facility in If the involved this case were opinion judgment. and the city, city in located a the residents of rely upon the Air could Control J., ENOCH, concurs. purity of For the safeguard to their air. SPECTOR, J., joined by DOGGETT and however, County, of there citizens Erath GAMMAGE, JJ., dissents. only continuing, overpowering no relief — by manifestly op- odors a emitted unnatural ENOCH, Justice, concurring. only This double standard is not eration. I judg- concur with Court’s unfair; contrary Legis- to it also the Texas ment. The Clean Air Act confers on the clean lature’s determined efforts to ensure Texas Air authority Control Board the to Texans, air or rural. I for all whether urban regulate “produced by pro- contaminants dissent. cesses other than natural.” Tex. Health 382.003(2). Thus, Safety Code the Board I. jurisdiction has contaminants years ago, unnatural and not three the area south of over those Until produced by processes. evidently natural Lingleville, pleasant As in this Texas was case, Whitenton, question a arises in pro- country; over whether a the words David cess is natural or a home there with his unnatural when humans who built retirement wife, place become in ac- ... community involved an otherwise natural it a “nice nice was that, tivity. majority dairy in holds in determin- to live.” The farms the area argues damages today pollution, 10. The dissent that our decision recover for a condition of a average such as nuisance action. forces rural citizens like those of Erath County emanating to bear from feed- argument prejudges lots. The what the agree that the in this 1. I with the dissent issue Moreover, appeals may hold on even remand. involves the determination of the agency lacking, cases in which enforcement is disagree with con- I the dissent’s persons legal remedy. that, affected are not a agricultural without busi- the context tention Safety ness, Texas Health Code section 382.004 not be as a should considered location specifically provides determining that Act does affect involve- not when whether the factor right private person pursue any natural of a an otherwise ment of humans makes all common-law remedies available abate unnatural. II. ranging size “family-run operations,” all from 120 to 650 cows. Texas Clean Air Act was created “to 1990,however, In the atmo- September of pol- state’s air resources from safeguard the sphere Lingleville took a dramatic south pro- in a “consistent with lution” manner turn for the worse. It was then that F/R health, welfare, public general tection began calf-raising opera- a Company Cattle including physical property, the esthetic en- tion described its owner as first joyment public.” of air resources its in the one of kind State Texas. 382.002(a). Health & Tex. hutches, small, placed enclosed Cattle F/R passage Act's reflects the fact that “air hutch, 6,000 calves, some three unin- recognized pollution has come be as sixty terrupted fifty-five confinement problem to eliminated rather than a curse be days. G. Norvell and Alex- to be endured.” Todd accounts, By emanating odor Bell, in Tex- Air Pollution Control ander W. fifty- facility is One Cattle’s offensive. (1969). as, 47 Tex.L.Rev. year of Erath likened the resident son, proposed, At the time it was His open pit.” “an sewer smell to “hornet’s nest” manager county has in the for Clean Act faced a farm who lived in- years, groups, odor twenty opposition more than described the various industrial smell, “sour, very A strong.” refiners, as a rancid chemical manu- cluding petroleum county woman who lived for twen- facturers, Id. at operators. and feed lot ty-eight years, and who was raised on however, groups recognized, 1091. These dairy, that the odor near the stated of air control degree your “you so want to hold nose.” intense inevitable; legisla- cooperated so just “it’s Another rancher stated that at 1092. drafting a bill. Id. tors you imagine.” can most rancid smell Other gave broad compromise was a result testimony “putrid,” described the odor newly-created foul,” “awful,” stench,” “foul, very “a to have sub- industry was which Board —on smelling.” “rotten placed representation which stantial —but *7 facility, proximity For those in close enforcement restraints on the Board’s clear totally the odor was unbearable. David Whi- Texas, Id.; Air Act of powers. see Clean tenton and his wife tried shield themselves R.S., 687, 1965 Tex.Gen.Laws Leg., ch. 59th by closing damper the sealing the house and the legislatures followed Subsequent 1583. fireplace; odor would still over the but the approach; example, when same way So the make its inside. foul was stench an ginners pressed for amendment cotton finally forced to that the Whitentons coverage, legisla- the exempting them away. move juris- to retain the Board’s opted instead ture air, quality the of their Seeking to restore sharp gins placing while diction over cotton County the of Erath turned to the citizens order. on the the Board could limits remedies During help. Texas Air Control Board for 1095; Bell, Clean supra, at see and Norvell year operation, the Cattle’s first of R.S., 1967, Texas, Leg., ch. 60th Act of Air against fifty-four complaints Board received 6(C), 1948.1 § 1967 Tex.Gen.Laws total had company than the it —more Act Air present version of Clean The through- for all livestock received origi- the same basic features retains years four past out Erath for the jurisdiction on it confers broad nal version: ac- The Board then initiated this combined. Board, while restrict- Act, Air tion under Texas Clean Tex. Safety The Act powers.2 its enforcement ing Code ch. 382. Health & 1, 1993, 6(C) September Texas Air Control part of provided "[t]he As that board 2. Section replaced by the regulations has abolished require Board been may not in its rules and Conservation Commis- requires Resource plants Texas Natural meet a standard which such C.S., 30, 1991, Leg., July 1st Act 72nd eight percent of less sion. emission than 1.086, § entering process." 1991 Tex.Gen.Laws weight ch. materials charges jurisdiction 382.017(e); the Board with Tex. Health & -(3) produce 382.024(1), non-natural (requiring §§ certain see also pollutants, odors;3 including proceed- but in Board to consider location-related factors in against determinations). ing polluters, comply issuing making Board must orders and extensive, statutory detailed restric- These provisions legislature’s reflect con- id, §§ tions. See 382.011-.039 (powers problem: sidered resolution of a difficult board), (permits), duties making degree protection 382.051-.063 382.- problem enforcement). (penalties Texans, 081-.096 recognizing to all while available acceptable may in one not be what is area statutory Several of these restrictions con- acceptable in another. cern Board’s consideration of location. Legislature, The 60th legislature certainly which enacted a re- could have re- vised version of the Air problem exempting Clean intended solved this certain strictly areas, that rural areas regions, be controlled less heavily-polluted such as Bell, than Alternatively, urban areas. See Norvell and the Board’s it ' supra, at 1096. limiting Rather than could have defined “air contaminant” ex- jurisdiction, however, legislature pollutants clude that have become common- adopted provisions directing area; the Air Control place particular or it could have making take location into exempted agricultural operations account certain Texas, 1967, its rules. See Clean Air Act of permitting requirements from the for air 6(B), 1967 Tex.Gen.Laws at 1947-48. In legislature contaminant emissions.4 form, their provisions provide chose, however, current those approach it adhere in part: always revising taken in Clean Act: it broad to the Air afforded rule, adopting recog- the board shall Board, together with clear instruc- Control quantity
nize that the or characteristic of tions to the Board to consider location-relat- air contaminants or the duration their carrying responsibili- ed when out its factors presence atmosphere may in the cause a ties. need for air control in one area of the state connection,
but not in other areas. In this legislature’s definition of “air contami- the board shall consider: location; nant” contains no reference to but (1) proper factors found it to be majority, rejecting reading literal just, including existing physical condi- “unwarranted,” engrafts that definition as tions, topography, population, prevail- legislature’s defini- location factor onto the ing velocity; wind direction and announcing tion that “location is a factor (2) determining the fact that a degrees rule and the to be considered whether a *8 may by of conformance pollutant ‘produced with the rule that be was other ” proper an essentially sup- for residential area than natural.’ 866 at 204. To S.W.2d may statute, proper rewriting majori- the state be highly port not for a the this decisions, developed relatively ty upon industrial area or both a relies two lower-court unpopulated jur- upheld area. the Air of which Control Board’s duties, by year, powers, rights, Legislature Commission has all of the the Texas earlier this would Id., obligations agricultural operations— formerly by exempted and have certain held the Board. 1.086(b)(2). including poultry operations § livestock —from Act, requirements permitting the Clean Air the except in certain circumstances. "accomplish 3. The Act directs the Board to the chapter purposes through of this the control compa- approach by majority taken the is The practical air contaminants and economi- approach the of Senate Bill 684: when- rable to cally Safety methods.” & feasible Tex. Health poultry operations are concen- ever livestock or 382.011(b) added). (emphasis § Code "Air con- area, particular will a trated in those pollu- taminant” defined to include is numerous effectively exempted requirements of be from the tants, odors, including "produced by processes ground are the Air Act on the that Clean Id., 382.003(2). § other than natural.” opin- Today’s measure, for the area. "normal usual” large accomplishes, in the ion thus fact, option, recently rejected only legislature 4. This latter in has received same outcome the ago. rejected Bill serious consideration. Senate months 208 “natural”). 1986) (defining particular college
isdiction
ed.
contaminants.
Trucking
plays
Southwest Livestock and
v.
only
Co.
role that
under the Clean
location
(Tex.
Bd.,
Control
whether the is however, will, af- majority’s The decision processes other than natural.” Whether farmers, “natural,” however, average rural Texans like particular process fect is ranchers, See, citizens Erath Coun- e.g., and retired nothing has to do with its location. (2d ty, must bear the DICTIONARY who continue Webstee’s New WORLD Livestock, 552; Europak, asking process is 579 S.W.2d 5. This whether west standard — 891. In view of the remainder other S.W.2d at "consistent with" the area— however, that the majority's opinion, I assume majority claims is different from the standard the Europak adopt adopt, majority actually means which focuses on whether the is "normal and usual” for the area. See South- standard. emanating from Company Cattle ORDER facility. A number of these have individuals Respondents’ motion to appeal dismiss the court, filed amicus curiae briefs before this 10, 1993, grant- filed herein on December among stating, things, they other have ed. outside;6 been prop- unable remain their judgment the court erty plummeted;7 have values have vacated, judgment are and the stripped been right their air.8 clean trial court is reinstated.
The rural citizens of Texas are entitled to
bring complaints regarding quality their Board,
to the Texas Air Control to have complaints investigated appropri-
those
ate taken. majority today action
approved approach nonsensical to environ- protection:
mental as quality the air deterio- rates, does the so Be- OFFICE OF PUBLIC UTILITY cause the Board has AND THE COUNSEL STATE under the Texas Clean Air I would OF TEXAS judgment affirm appeals. of the court of
v. GAMMAGE, JJ., join DOGGETT PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF dissenting opinion. Lighting Houston TEXAS And Company.
Power No. D-3890.
Supreme Court of Texas. Dec. 1993.
ORDER DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL parties on expedite Motion to behalf DISTRICT and Dallas 9,1993, filed December granted; herein on Appraisal Review Board Texas’, Petitioner’s, State of for motion 10,1993, rehearing herein on filed November
v. overruled; the Order of this Court granting application October UNITED STATES POSTAL writ of error on behalf of The State of Texas SERVICE et al. withdrawn, application improvi- No. D-4087. dently granted. judgments, Motion to affirm final vacate Supreme Court of Texas. applications order for writ and dismiss Dec. Utility of the Office error on behalf of Public 3, 1993, is Counsel filed herein on December granted. judgments of the courts below Welsh, Curiae brief filed brief filed Cross Timbers Amicus S. John 8. Amicus Curiae McConnell, Keller, (a *10 ap- Bill McCon- non-profit group Ronnie nell, Weldon Concerned Citizens Kelly, Bill who describe themselves proximately members concerned with unincorporated rural residents of "an community retirement surrounding quality of life in Erath and coun- ... who have suffered [from] ties), at 2. odors,” putrid rancid at 1. 7. Id.