Crawford v. Kelly Field National Bank

4 Citing cases

  1. Greiner v. Jameson

    865 S.W.2d 493 (Tex. App. 1993)   Cited 36 times
    Holding that district court abused its discretion when sanctioning companies that were not party to the case by ordering them to release various persons and entities from liability

    When the effect of a sanction is to modify the judgment, the court must impose the sanction within the period of the court's plenary jurisdiction. See Crawford v. Kelly Field Nat'l Bank, 724 S.W.2d 899, 901 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1987, no writ). Inherent power to sanction exists where necessary to deter, alleviate, and counteract bad faith abuse of the judicial process.

  2. Matter of Camp

    59 F.3d 548 (5th Cir. 1995)   Cited 13 times
    Finding under Texas law that sanctions order was final and constituted a valid judgment

    Thus, even if a court has general jurisdiction to act, a judgment is void if the actual action taken orders a remedy not within the court's jurisdiction.See Crawford v. Kelly Field Nat'l Bank, 724 S.W.2d 899, 901 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1987, no writ) (holding that although jurisdiction to enter sanctions order existed, jurisdiction to order remedy that modified judgment no longer existed because modification remedy no longer available if more than thirty days had elapsed since judgment); cf. Downs v. City of Fort Worth, 692 S.W.2d 209, 212 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (stating, in discussion of appeal time limits, that "[i]f a judgment were granted in contravention of a mandatory statutory provision it would be a void judgment."). In this case, therefore, the issues require us to determine whether the state trial court sanctions order declaring the Linda property not Camp's homestead and the trial court's order of sale contravened such a jurisdictional restriction.

  3. Wolma v. Gonzalez

    822 S.W.2d 302 (Tex. App. 1991)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that jurisdiction to grant Rule 13 sanctions remained after trial court's plenary power expired

    Goad, 768 S.W.2d at 358. Relators cite Crawford v. Kelly Field Nat'l Bank, 724 S.W.2d 899 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1987, no writ) as authority for the proposition that sanctions may not be imposed by a trial court after the expiration of its plenary power. Crawford is not in point.

  4. Faherty v. Knize

    764 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. App. 1989)   Cited 9 times

    At that time, Judge Knize lost plenary jurisdiction of the matter and he could not thereafter impose sanctions upon anyone for prejudgment discovery abuses. Cf. Crawford v. Kelly Field Nat'l Bank, 724 S.W.2d 899, 901 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1987, no writ) (holding that the trial court could not strike appellant's pleading as a post-judgment discovery sanction after its plenary power to vacate or modify the judgment had expired). This is not to say, however, that Judge Knize could not have sanctioned post -judgment abuses under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 621a.