From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ford Motor v. Ocanas

Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi
Jul 15, 2004
Nos. 13-02-015-CV, 13-02-215-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 15, 2004)

Opinion

Nos. 13-02-015-CV, 13-02-215-CV

Opinion delivered and filed July 15, 2004.

On appeal from the 28th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

Before Chief Justice VALDEZ and Justices RODRIGUEZ and DORSEY.

Retired Justice J. Bonner Dorsey, who had been assigned to this Court by the Supreme Court of Texas pursuant to section 74.003 of the government code, and whose assignment expired on August 31, 2003, did not participate in this decision. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 74.003 (Vernon Supp. 2004).


OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING


Appellee has filed a motion for rehearing in cause number 13-02-015-CV. After reviewing the motion and our original opinion, we find the motion for rehearing should be denied, but that two corrections should be made to our original opinion in cause numbers 13-02-015-CV and 13-02-215-CV. Ford Motor Co. v. Ocanas, Nos. 13-02-015-CV 13-02-215-CV, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 3630, at *9-*14 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi April 22, 2004, no pet. h.).

The last sentence of the first paragraph under subheading "1. Predominance" states "[w]e consider appellee's claims for breach of express and implied warranties and violations of the DTPA to determine whether appellee demonstrated that common issues of law or fact predominate. See Henry Schein, Inc., 102 S.W.3d at 693." This description is not correct. Accordingly, the last sentence of that paragraph is ordered changed to:

We consider appellee's claims for breach of express warranties and violations of the DTPA to determine whether appellee demonstrated that common issues of law or fact predominate. See Henry Schein, Inc., 102 S.W.3d at 693.

In the first sentence of the third paragraph under the subheading "a. Express Warranties and DTPA Violations," we stated "[l]ike the plaintiffs in Henry Schein, Inc., appellees pleaded breach of express and implied warranties and DTPA `laundry list' violations which require each class member to prove reliance as a prerequisite to recovery." Because reliance is not a required element to recover for breach of implied warranties, this sentence is ordered changed to:

Like the plaintiffs in Henry Schein, Inc., appellees pleaded breach of express warranties and DTPA "laundry list" violations which require each class member to prove reliance as a prerequisite to recovery.

Appellee's motion for rehearing is denied.

Appellee has also filed a motion for en banc reconsideration. That motion will be disposed of in a separate order.


Summaries of

Ford Motor v. Ocanas

Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi
Jul 15, 2004
Nos. 13-02-015-CV, 13-02-215-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 15, 2004)
Case details for

Ford Motor v. Ocanas

Case Details

Full title:FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellant, v. EDMOND OCANAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi

Date published: Jul 15, 2004

Citations

Nos. 13-02-015-CV, 13-02-215-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 15, 2004)