From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stevens v. National Education Centers

Supreme Court of Texas
Jan 6, 2000
11 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. 2000)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

determining evidence that plaintiff felt "devastated" and depressed, did not eat for a long time, lost weight, and became "very moody" was legally and factually sufficient to support award of mental anguish damages

Summary of this case from CA Partners v. Spears
See 12 Summaries

Opinion

No. 99-0552

Filed January 6, 2000

Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas.

David M. Gunn, John Edward Spalding, Dennis G. Herlong, Houston, for Petitioner.

Bryan P. Neal, Dallas, William J. Boyce, Bradley M. Whalen, Houston, Stephen F. Fink, Dallas, Stephen H. Lee, Houston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

National Education Centers, as Cross-Petitioner, challenges the jury's mental anguish damages award on the ground that the jury question on mental anguish was harmful error. The jury question at issue asked the jury to assess damages, if any, for past and future "mental anxiety, humiliation, and embarrassment." In Parkway Co. v. Woodruff, 901 S.W.2d 434, 444 (Tex. 1995), this Court held that a mental anguish damages award requires evidence of a "high degree of mental pain and distress" that is "more than mere worry, anxiety, vexation, embarrassment, or anger." Consequently, the jury question was defective.

Assuming this error was harmful, the appropriate remedy for this charge error is a new trial. See Spencer v. Eagle Star Ins. of Am., 876 S.W.2d 154, 157 (Tex. 1994). But NEC specifically requested that this Court not remand for a new trial and prayed only for rendition. Because NEC did not request appropriate relief for granting its petition for review, we deny both petitions for review.

Summaries of

Stevens v. National Education Centers

Supreme Court of Texas
Jan 6, 2000
11 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. 2000)

determining evidence that plaintiff felt "devastated" and depressed, did not eat for a long time, lost weight, and became "very moody" was legally and factually sufficient to support award of mental anguish damages

Summary of this case from CA Partners v. Spears

determining evidence that plaintiff felt "devastated" and depressed, did not eat for a long time, lost weight, and became "very moody" was legally and factually sufficient to support award of mental anguish damages

Summary of this case from CA Partners v. Spears

denying petition for review because appropriate remedy for ostensible error was a new trial but petitioner sought reversal and rendition alone rather than reversal and remand

Summary of this case from Solomon v. Buckle

denying review where the petitioner raised a complaint for which remand would have been the appropriate remedy but the petitioner "specifically requested that this Court not remand for a new trial and prayed only for rendition"

Summary of this case from Dipprey v. Double Diamond, Inc.

denying review where the petitioner raised a complaint for which remand would have been the appropriate remedy, but the petitioner “specifically requested that this Court not remand for a new trial”

Summary of this case from Enzo Investments, LP v. White

denying review where the petitioner raised a complaint for which remand would have been the appropriate remedy, but the petitioner "specifically requested that this Court not remand for a new trial"

Summary of this case from Enzo Invs., LP v. White

denying petition for review when party did not request appropriate relief

Summary of this case from MAULDIN v. MBNA AM. BANK

In Stevens v. National Education Centers, our supreme denied a petition for review because the appropriate remedy for the ostensible error was a new trial but the petitioner sought reversal and rendition alone, rather than reversal and remand.

Summary of this case from Harris v. Howard

assuming error in jury charge, but concluding it could not remand for new trial because appellant prayed only for rendition of judgment

Summary of this case from In re Interest of K.B.

In Stevens v. National Education Centers, Inc., the Supreme Court denied a petition for review because remand was the proper remedy and the petitioner "specifically requested that th[e] Court not remand for a new trial."

Summary of this case from Zaidi v. Shah

assuming error and concluding that the Texas Supreme Court could not remand for new trial because appellant only requested for the court to render judgment in its prayer

Summary of this case from In re Interest of J.W.

In Stevens v. Nat'l Educ. Ctrs. Inc., 11 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. 2000) (Stevens II), the supreme court, while denying the petitions for review for procedural reasons, specifically wrote to refute our opinion in Stevens v. Nat'l Educ. Ctrs., Inc., 990 S.W.2d 374 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist] 1999) (Stevens I).

Summary of this case from Campbell v. State
Case details for

Stevens v. National Education Centers

Case Details

Full title:DONNA H. STEVENS, Petitioner v. NATIONAL EDUCATION CENTERS, INC.…

Court:Supreme Court of Texas

Date published: Jan 6, 2000

Citations

11 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. 2000)

Citing Cases

Zaidi v. Shah

... Generally, a party is not entitled to relief it does not request."); State v. Brown , 262 S.W.3d 365, 370…

Molina v. Moore

And, if an appealing party chooses to seek only reversal and rendition of judgment, then the appellate court…

40 Citing Cases