Ramirez v. Salinas

Texas Supreme Court

Ramirez v. Salinas

117 S.W.2d 56, 131 Tex. 537, 1938 Tex. LEXIS 346

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedJune 1, 1938

DocketNo. 7077.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 117 S.W.2d 56 (Ramirez v. Salinas) 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

Ramirez v. Salinas, 117 S.W.2d 56, 131 Tex. 537, 1938 Tex. LEXIS 346 (Tex. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Judge Smedley

delivered the opinion of the Commission of Appeals, Section B.

1 We find from examination of the application for writ of error, after submission of the cause, that the application was improvidently granted,- because it fails to state, as required by Rule No. 1 for the Supreme'Court, that the particular decision or ruling sought to be reviewed was assigned as error in motion for rehearing filed in the Court of Civil Appeals. The application for writ of error contains no reference to the motion for rehearing in the Court of Civil Appeals and does not state that a motion for rehearing was filed. It becomes necessary, therefore, to set aside the order granting the application and to dismiss it. Leonard Bros. v. Newton, 129 Texas 1, 101 S. W. (2d) 223; Glenn v. McCarty, 130 Texas 641, 107 S. W. (2d) 363, 110 S. W. (2d) 1148; Casualty Reciprocal Exchange v. Dawson, 130 Texas 362, 107 S. W. (2d) 994.

2 We have, however, examined the transcript, the statement of facts and the briefs, and if jurisdiction of the cause were retained we would affirm the judgments of the trial court and the Court of Civil Appeals, on the ground that it was not necessary to submit to the jury the question of proximate cause, because the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence is that the negligence of the operator of the truck in driving it on the public highway at night without , lights proximately caused the death of defendants in error’s son. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. McCoy, 90 Texas 264, 38 S. W. 36; St. Louis *539 S. W. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Missildine, 157 S. W. 245 (application for writ of error refused) ; Crow v. Southwestern Transportation Co., 73 S. W. (2d) 607 (application for writ of error refused) ; International-Great Northern R. R. Co. v. Hawthorne, 131 Texas 622, 116 S. W. (2d) 1056, decided May 25, 1938.

The order granting the application for writ of error is set aside and the application is dismissed.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court June 1, 1938.

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

Mr. Presiding Judge Smedley

delivered the opinion of the Commission of Appeals, Section B.

1 We find from examination of the application for writ of error, after submission of the cause, that the application was improvidently granted,- because it fails to state, as required by Rule No. 1 for the Supreme'Court, that the particular decision or ruling sought to be reviewed was assigned as error in motion for rehearing filed in the Court of Civil Appeals. The application for writ of error contains no reference to the motion for rehearing in the Court of Civil Appeals and does not state that a motion for rehearing was filed. It becomes necessary, therefore, to set aside the order granting the application and to dismiss it. Leonard Bros. v. Newton, 129 Texas 1, 101 S. W. (2d) 223; Glenn v. McCarty, 130 Texas 641, 107 S. W. (2d) 363, 110 S. W. (2d) 1148; Casualty Reciprocal Exchange v. Dawson, 130 Texas 362, 107 S. W. (2d) 994.

2 We have, however, examined the transcript, the statement of facts and the briefs, and if jurisdiction of the cause were retained we would affirm the judgments of the trial court and the Court of Civil Appeals, on the ground that it was not necessary to submit to the jury the question of proximate cause, because the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence is that the negligence of the operator of the truck in driving it on the public highway at night without , lights proximately caused the death of defendants in error’s son. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. McCoy, 90 Texas 264, 38 S. W. 36; St. Louis *539 S. W. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Missildine, 157 S. W. 245 (application for writ of error refused) ; Crow v. Southwestern Transportation Co., 73 S. W. (2d) 607 (application for writ of error refused) ; International-Great Northern R. R. Co. v. Hawthorne, 131 Texas 622, 116 S. W. (2d) 1056, decided May 25, 1938.

The order granting the application for writ of error is set aside and the application is dismissed.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court June 1, 1938.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 S.W.2d 56, 131 Tex. 537, 1938 Tex. LEXIS 346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-v-salinas-tex-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack