Peterson v. Reyna

Texas Supreme Court

Peterson v. Reyna

920 S.W.2d 288, 39 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 485, 1996 Tex. LEXIS 35, 1996 WL 173358

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedApril 12, 1996

Docket95-1123

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 920 S.W.2d 288 (Peterson v. Reyna) 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

Peterson v. Reyna, 920 S.W.2d 288, 39 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 485, 1996 Tex. LEXIS 35, 1996 WL 173358 (Tex. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a personal injury action. Petitioner, Sandra Peterson, appeals from the court of appeals’ judgment affirming the trial court’s judgment in her favor. We grant writ of error and modify the court of appeals’ judgment to delete the assessment of costs against petitioner. Because the petitioner satisfied the requirements set out in Tex. R.App.P. 40(a)(3) to prosecute the appeal as an indigent, all parties agree that the court of appeals erred in its assessment of costs against her. As to the remainder of the court of appeals’ judgment, for which there is no opinion of the court because each justice on the panel submitted a separate opinion, there is “no error which requires reversal, or which is of such importance to the jurisprudence of the State as to require correction.” Tex.R.App.P. 133(a).

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a personal injury action. Petitioner, Sandra Peterson, appeals from the court of appeals’ judgment affirming the trial court’s judgment in her favor. We grant writ of error and modify the court of appeals’ judgment to delete the assessment of costs against petitioner. Because the petitioner satisfied the requirements set out in Tex. R.App.P. 40(a)(3) to prosecute the appeal as an indigent, all parties agree that the court of appeals erred in its assessment of costs against her. As to the remainder of the court of appeals’ judgment, for which there is no opinion of the court because each justice on the panel submitted a separate opinion, there is “no error which requires reversal, or which is of such importance to the jurisprudence of the State as to require correction.” Tex.R.App.P. 133(a).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

920 S.W.2d 288, 39 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 485, 1996 Tex. LEXIS 35, 1996 WL 173358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-reyna-tex-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack