Law Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. v. Slosburg Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Law Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. v. Slosburg Co.

100 S.W.3d 389, 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 9118, 2002 WL 31839192

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 19, 2002

Docket01-02-00153-CV

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 100 S.W.3d 389 (Law Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. v. Slosburg Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Law Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. v. Slosburg Co., 100 S.W.3d 389, 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 9118, 2002 WL 31839192 (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

After an appeal was filed, Slosburg Company, Gibraltar Construction Company, and Texas SFI Partnership 24 Limited (collectively appellees), filed a motion to “Determine Adequacy of Supersedeas Bond.” Appellees’ motion requests that this Court order Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. (Law), to “provide additional security for the post-judgment interest likely to accrue on the judgment.”

The trial court has continuing jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of a bond on any party’s motion. Tex.R.App. P. 24.3(a); see Tex.R.App. P. 24.1(b)(2). We cannot review the trial court’s exercise of discretion in ordering the amount of security unless the record demonstrates that a request was presented to the trial court to determine the sufficiency of the bond and that the trial court made a ruling thereon. Hamilton v. Hi-Plains Truck Brokers, Inc., 23 S.W.3d 442, 443 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2000, no pet.); see Lowe v. Monsanto Co., 965 S.W.2d 741, 742 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1998, pet. denied) (vacating trial court’s order denying amended motion to increase amount of deposit in lieu of supersedeas bond and remanding for entry of findings of fact). After reviewing the record, it appears that appellees have failed to present a motion to the trial court to increase the amount of the supersedeas bond; therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider this matter. 1 Accordingly, appellees’ motion for an order increasing the amount of the supersedeas bond is denied.

It is so ORDERED.

1

. See Gullo-Haas Toyota, Inc. v. Davidson, Eagleson & Co., 832 S.W.2d 418, 419-20 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ) (holding, based upon pre-1997 version of rules of appellate procedure, that appellee’s motion to increase security for judgment must be filed with trial court).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

After an appeal was filed, Slosburg Company, Gibraltar Construction Company, and Texas SFI Partnership 24 Limited (collectively appellees), filed a motion to “Determine Adequacy of Supersedeas Bond.” Appellees’ motion requests that this Court order Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. (Law), to “provide additional security for the post-judgment interest likely to accrue on the judgment.”

The trial court has continuing jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of a bond on any party’s motion. Tex.R.App. P. 24.3(a); see Tex.R.App. P. 24.1(b)(2). We cannot review the trial court’s exercise of discretion in ordering the amount of security unless the record demonstrates that a request was presented to the trial court to determine the sufficiency of the bond and that the trial court made a ruling thereon. Hamilton v. Hi-Plains Truck Brokers, Inc., 23 S.W.3d 442, 443 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2000, no pet.); see Lowe v. Monsanto Co., 965 S.W.2d 741, 742 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1998, pet. denied) (vacating trial court’s order denying amended motion to increase amount of deposit in lieu of supersedeas bond and remanding for entry of findings of fact). After reviewing the record, it appears that appellees have failed to present a motion to the trial court to increase the amount of the supersedeas bond; therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider this matter. 1 Accordingly, appellees’ motion for an order increasing the amount of the supersedeas bond is denied.

It is so ORDERED.

1

. See Gullo-Haas Toyota, Inc. v. Davidson, Eagleson & Co., 832 S.W.2d 418, 419-20 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ) (holding, based upon pre-1997 version of rules of appellate procedure, that appellee’s motion to increase security for judgment must be filed with trial court).

Chris Traylor, as Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission And the Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. Diana D., as Next Friend of KD, a Child Karen G., as Next Friend of TG and ZM, Children Guadalupe P., as Next Friend of LP, a Child Sally L., as Next Friend of CH, a Child Dena D., as Next Friend of BD, a Child OCI Acquisition, LLC

Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015

in Re: General Motors Acceptance Corporation

Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 S.W.3d 389, 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 9118, 2002 WL 31839192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/law-engineering-environmental-services-inc-v-slosburg-co-texapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack