Burnett v. Motyka

610 S.W.2d 735, 24 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 67, 1980 Tex. LEXIS 406
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 5, 1980
DocketB-9623
StatusPublished
Cited by293 cases

This text of 610 S.W.2d 735 (Burnett v. Motyka) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Burnett v. Motyka, 610 S.W.2d 735, 24 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 67, 1980 Tex. LEXIS 406 (Tex. 1980).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In a negligence suit, Charles Motyka sought to recover property damages against Ward Burnett and Wanda Burnett, his daughter. Damages were stipulated, leaving only the liability issue for trial. In a nonjury trial, judgment was rendered against the Burnetts. The Burnetts then appealed without requesting findings of fact or conclusions of law, challenging the factual and legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s judgment. The court of civil appeals affirmed. 599 S.W.2d 671. We reverse the judgment of the court of civil appeals and remand the cause to that court.

In a nonjury trial, where no findings of fact or conclusions of law are filed or requested, it will be implied that the trial court made all the necessary findings to support its judgment. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Jefferson Construction Co., 565 S.W.2d 916 (Tex.1978); Lassiter v. Bliss, 559 S.W.2d 353 (Tex.1978). These implied findings may be challenged by “insufficient evidence” and “no evidence” points the same as jury findings and a trial court’s findings of fact. In the court of civil appeals, the Burnetts sought to challenge the trial court’s implied findings on both of these grounds. In purporting to resolve these points, the court stated:

In determining whether there is any evidence to support the judgment and the implied findings of fact incident thereto, the appellate court can only consider that evidence that is favorable to the judgment and must disregard entirely that which is opposed to it.

599 S.W.2d at 673. It then proceeded by considering only that evidence favorable to the trial court’s judgment. The court’s opinion ended: “The evidence viewed in its most favorable light was sufficient to support the trial court’s judgment. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.” Id. at 673.

We recognize that the above rule announced by the court of civil appeals is the correct rule to be applied to “no evidence” points. However, we have on numerous occasions held that a different rule must be applied to “insufficient evidence” points. In determining that question the court must consider and weigh all the evidence, including any evidence contrary to the trial court’s judgment. In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1952); Harrison v. Chesshir, 159 Tex. 359, 320 S.W.2d 814 (1959); Watson v. Prewitt, 159 Tex. 305, 320 S.W.2d 815 (1959).

In this case, it is clear that the court of civil appeals, in applying only the no evidence rule, failed to consider and weigh all the evidence, thereby failing to properly rule on the Burnetts’ “insufficient evidence” points. We conclude that this cause therefore must be remanded to that court for consideration of these points.

Pursuant to Rule 483, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the application for writ of error is granted, and without hearing oral argument, we reverse the judgment of the court of civil appeals and remand the cause to that court for a determination not inconsistent with this opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

D. Wilson Construction Co. v. Cris Equipment Co.
988 S.W.2d 388 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Ohio Casualty Group v. Risinger
960 S.W.2d 708 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)
Monroe v. Frank
936 S.W.2d 654 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
Bowles v. Reed
913 S.W.2d 652 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
Town of Sunnyvale v. Mayhew
905 S.W.2d 234 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)
Brigham v. Brigham
863 S.W.2d 761 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Stum v. Stum
845 S.W.2d 407 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
St. Paul Medical Center v. Cecil
842 S.W.2d 808 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Womack v. Redden
846 S.W.2d 5 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Commonwealth Lloyd's Insurance Co. v. Thomas
825 S.W.2d 135 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Shaver v. Schuster
815 S.W.2d 818 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Stokley v. Hanratty
809 S.W.2d 924 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Vanessa W. v. Texas Department of Human Services
810 S.W.2d 744 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Anarkali Enterprises, Inc. v. Riverside Drive Enterprises, Inc.
802 S.W.2d 25 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Noble Exploration, Inc. v. Nixon Drilling Co., Inc.
794 S.W.2d 589 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Doe v. Doe
796 S.W.2d 506 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Lawson-Avila Construction, Inc. v. Stoutamire
791 S.W.2d 584 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Forscan Corp. v. Dresser Industries, Inc.
789 S.W.2d 389 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Marshall v. Marshall
786 S.W.2d 493 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
610 S.W.2d 735, 24 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 67, 1980 Tex. LEXIS 406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burnett-v-motyka-tex-1980.