Vidor Walgreen Pharmacy v. Fisher

Texas Supreme Court

Vidor Walgreen Pharmacy v. Fisher

728 S.W.2d 353, 30 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 367, 1987 Tex. LEXIS 329

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedApril 15, 1987

DocketC-6124

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 728 S.W.2d 353 (Vidor Walgreen Pharmacy v. Fisher) 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

Vidor Walgreen Pharmacy v. Fisher, 728 S.W.2d 353, 30 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 367, 1987 Tex. LEXIS 329 (Tex. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This is a personal injury case in which the sole issue before this court is whether the plaintiff, Janet Fisher, should be allowed to recover, in the absence of pleadings, prejudgment interest under Cavnar v. Quality Control Parking, Inc., 696 S.W.2d 549 (Tex.1985). The trial court awarded prejudgment interest based on a jury verdict in Fisher’s favor. The court of appeals affirmed that judgment, concluding that Cavnar made a specific pleading for prejudgment interest unnecessary. 722 S.W.2d 744 (Tex.App.1986). Subsequent to the court of appeals’ opinion, this court held that “although we intended Cavnar to apply to all cases still in the judicial process, we did not dispense with the pleading requirement for prejudgment interest sought at common law, nor did we suspend Rule 301, which requires the judgment to conform to the pleadings. See Tex.R. Civ.P. 301.” Benavides v. Isles Construction Co., 726 S.W.2d 23 (Tex.1987).

Therefore, because the judgment of the court of appeals conflicts with a prior decision of this court, we grant the petitioner’s application for writ of error. Pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 133(b), without hearing oral argument, a majority of this court reverses the judgment of the court of appeals. The judgment of the trial court is modified to delete the prejudgment interest award. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This is a personal injury case in which the sole issue before this court is whether the plaintiff, Janet Fisher, should be allowed to recover, in the absence of pleadings, prejudgment interest under Cavnar v. Quality Control Parking, Inc., 696 S.W.2d 549 (Tex.1985). The trial court awarded prejudgment interest based on a jury verdict in Fisher’s favor. The court of appeals affirmed that judgment, concluding that Cavnar made a specific pleading for prejudgment interest unnecessary. 722 S.W.2d 744 (Tex.App.1986). Subsequent to the court of appeals’ opinion, this court held that “although we intended Cavnar to apply to all cases still in the judicial process, we did not dispense with the pleading requirement for prejudgment interest sought at common law, nor did we suspend Rule 301, which requires the judgment to conform to the pleadings. See Tex.R. Civ.P. 301.” Benavides v. Isles Construction Co., 726 S.W.2d 23 (Tex.1987).

Therefore, because the judgment of the court of appeals conflicts with a prior decision of this court, we grant the petitioner’s application for writ of error. Pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 133(b), without hearing oral argument, a majority of this court reverses the judgment of the court of appeals. The judgment of the trial court is modified to delete the prejudgment interest award. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

728 S.W.2d 353, 30 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 367, 1987 Tex. LEXIS 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vidor-walgreen-pharmacy-v-fisher-tex-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack