Hunter v. Ramirez

5 Citing cases

  1. Spoon Ranch Family Ltd. P'ship v. Atmos Energy Corp.

    680 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. App. 2023)

    Appellants cite to Hunter v. Ramirez, which they contend is factually similar, for the proposition that the trial court should have granted their motion for new trial based on their alleged lack of notice of a hearing. Hunter v. Ramirez, 637 S.W.3d 858, 863 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, no pet.). In Hunter, electronic notice of a hearing on a no-evidence motion for summary judgment was sent to the spam folder of plaintiff’s counsel’s e-mail account, and the plaintiff consequently failed to respond to the motion or appear at the scheduled hearing.

  2. K & Ingrid Inc. v. Evangel Healthcare Charities Inc.

    No. 14-23-00486-CV (Tex. App. May. 2, 2024)

    We review the denial of a new trial motion for an abuse of discretion. Hunter v. Ramirez, 637 S.W.3d 858, 862 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, no pet.).

  3. Abouhatab v. ESW Towing, LLC

    No. 14-23-00027-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 30, 2023)

    We review the denial of a motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion. Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 796, 813 (Tex. 2010); Hunter v. Ramirez, 637 S.W.3d 858, 862 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, no pet.). The test for an abuse of discretion is whether the trial court acted arbitrarily or without reference to guiding legal principles.

  4. Roe v. Daniel

    No. 14-22-00544-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 8, 2023)

    We review the denial of a motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion. Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 796, 813 (Tex. 2010); Hunter v. Ramirez, 637 S.W.3d 858, 862 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, no pet.). The test for an abuse of discretion is whether the trial court acted arbitrarily or without reference to guiding legal principles.

  5. Joy v. U.S. Lloyds Ins. Co.

    No. 05-22-00310-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 18, 2023)

    See, e.g., Hunter v. Ramirez, 637 S.W.3d 858, 864 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, no pet.); Norton v. Martinez, 935 S.W.2d 898, 903 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.) (defendant met third Craddock factor when plaintiff did not respond to motion or offer evidence to rebut showing of no undue delay or injury).