Palo Pinto County v. Lee

988 S.W.2d 739, 42 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 42, 1998 Tex. LEXIS 141, 1998 WL 716953
Texas Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1998·No. 98-0323·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We deny Palo Pinto’s petition for review. However, we note that in discussing Rule 21 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the court of appeals held:

[T]he County presented its oral motion to strike Lee’s response on the day set for the summary judgment hearing when the trial court was hearing “preliminary matters before we get to the motion for summary judgment.” This was not an oral motion “presented during a hearing or trial.”

966 S.W.2d 83, 85. We disapprove of this language to the extent the court concluded that Palo Pinto did not present its oral mo *740 tion to strike during a hearing. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 21.

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

Palo Pinto County v. Lee, 988 S.W.2d 739, 42 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 42, 1998 Tex. LEXIS 141, 1998 WL 716953 (Tex. 1998).

988 S.W.2d 739 (Palo Pinto County v. Lee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services v. Carol Mersch
418 S.W.3d 736 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2013)
in Re: Robert Holeman Twist
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007
Twist v. McAllen National Bank
248 S.W.3d 351 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)
City of Waco v. Lopez
183 S.W.3d 825 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
in the Matter of N.S., a Juvenile
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004