Papco, Inc. v. Eaton

7 Citing cases

  1. Bywater v. State

    No. 14-03-00197-CR (Tex. App. May. 11, 2004)

    The closest such decision we have found is a civil case that was not reversed for reopening the evidence, but for allowing additional evidence to be offered by only one party and not the other. See Papco, Inc. v. Eaton, 522 S.W.2d 538, 544 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1975, writ dism'd by agr.).

  2. Apresa v. Montfort Ins. Co.

    932 S.W.2d 246 (Tex. App. 1996)   Cited 8 times
    Holding exception applied when, after resting, a litigant motions to reopen the litigant's case to introduce additional evidence

    However, such discretion should be liberally exercised in the interest of permitting both sides to fully develop the case in the interest of justice. Word of Faith World Outreach, 669 S.W.2d at 366-367, citing Barrier v. Beavers, 531 S.W.2d 191, 193 (Tex.Civ.App. — Amarillo 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Papco, Inc. v. Eaton, 522 S.W.2d 538, 543 (Tex.Civ.App. — Texarkana 1975, no writ). Indeed, it appears that in some Rule 270 situations the trial court's discretion is very limited:

  3. Word of Faith World Outreach Center Church, Inc. v. Oechsner

    669 S.W.2d 364 (Tex. App. 1984)   Cited 39 times
    Listing only the last three factors

    However, such discretion should be liberally exercised in the interest of permitting both sides to fully develop the case in the interest of justice. Barrier v. Beavers, 531 S.W.2d 191, 193 (Tex.Civ.App. — Amarillo 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Papco, Inc. v. Eaton, 522 S.W.2d 538, 543 (Tex.Civ.App. — Texarkana 1975, no writ). In Hill v. Melton, 311 S.W.2d 496 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1958, writ dism'd.)

  4. Johnson v. Hermann Hosp

    659 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. App. 1983)   Cited 12 times
    In Johnson v. Hermann Hospital, 659 S.W.2d 124 (Tex.Civ.App. 1983), a fifteen-year old girl, after undergoing successful surgery to correct buck teeth, was transferred to Hermann Hospital's SICU II where she was breathing through an endotracheal tube.

    Markham v. Carothers, 47 Tex. 21, 27 (1877); Gendke v. Traveler's Insurance Co., 368 S.W.2d 3 (Tex.Civ.App. — Waco 1963, no writ). A trial judge is not vested with discretion to deprive a litigant of a matured right to produce rebuttal testimony. Papco Inc. v. Eaton, 522 S.W.2d 538 (Tex.Civ.App. — Texarkana 1975, no writ). Appellants' points of error two through seven are sustained. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for new trial.

  5. Zodiac v. General Elec. Credit

    566 S.W.2d 341 (Tex. Civ. App. 1978)   Cited 25 times

    Moreover, it was within the complete discretion of the trial court to reopen the case, and such discretion "should be liberally exercised in the interest of permitting both sides to fully develop the case in the interest of justice." Barrier v. Beavers, 531 S.W.2d 191, 193 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1975, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Papco, Inc. v. Eaton, 522 S.W.2d 538, 543 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1975, n. w. h.); Lackey v. Perry, 366 S.W.2d 91, 96 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1963, n. w. h.); Rauh v. Rauh, 267 S.W.2d 584, 586 (Tex.Civ.App.-Galveston 1954, n. w. h.); Gulf, C. S. F. Ry. Co. v. Bouchillon, 186 S.W.2d 1006, 1010 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1945, writ ref'd w. o. m.). The discretion of the trial court to reopen a case to receive additional evidence has been applied in a case where there was harmless error and the prior announced judgment was not disturbed or changed, as in the instant case, even after an appeal bond has been filed.

  6. Smart v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad

    560 S.W.2d 216 (Tex. Civ. App. 1978)   Cited 11 times
    Asserting that "there must be a showing of diligence upon the part of the moving party" in requesting court to allow a party to reopen his case after resting

    A trial court judge may exercise wide discretion in the admission of additional evidence under Rule 270. Papco, Inc. v. Eaton, 522 S.W.2d 538, 543 (Tex.Civ.App. Texarkana 1975, no writ). It is within the sound discretion of the court to allow a party to reopen his case after having rested it. Binford v. Snyder, 144 Tex. 134, 189 S.W.2d 471, 476 (1945); Wofford v. Miller, 381 S.W.2d 640 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1964, writ ref'd n. r. e.). However, there must be a showing of diligence upon the part of the moving party in making such a request.

  7. Amoco Chemicals Corp. v. Sutton

    551 S.W.2d 459 (Tex. Civ. App. 1977)   Cited 7 times

    " The court in Papco, Inc. v. Eaton, 522 S.W.2d 538 (Tex.Civ.App. Texarkana 1975, no writ) said: ". . . A witness in a case is interested, and the credibility and weight to be given such witness' testimony is a question solely for the jury, when the record shows a reasonable basis for the witness harboring a partisan attitude towards the outcome of the case.