Park v. Essa Texas Corp.

26 Citing cases

  1. Park v. Archer

    311 S.W.2d 231 (Tex. 1958)   Cited 1 times

    GREENHILL, Justice. This is an original proceeding in mandamus filed in connection with Park v. Essa Texas Corp., Tex., 311 S.W.2d 228. It appears that the trial judge refused to approve the statement of facts when presented to him because he was of the opinion that the time for filing the record in the Court of Civil Appeals had expired and that, for a like reason, the Clerk of the Court of Civil Appeals refused to file the transcript and the statement of facts tendered by relator, Jack G. Park. In view of our holdings in 311 S.W.2d 228, relator is entitled to have the trial judge approve or settle and approve the statement of facts as of the date the same was presented to him and the Clerk of the Court of Civil Appeals file the tendered transcript and statement of facts as of the date the same were tendered to him for filing so that the Court of Civil Appeals may consider the appeal upon its merits.

  2. Cecil v. Smith

    804 S.W.2d 509 (Tex. 1991)   Cited 322 times
    Holding challenge based on legal sufficiency of evidence supporting jury finding may be preserved for appeal by a motion for directed verdict; a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; an objection to the charge; a motion to disregard the finding; or a motion for new trial, and factual sufficiency challenge on appeal requires party to have preserved challenge in trial court in motion for new trial

    Further, it thwarts the purpose of motion for new trial practice, which is to avoid unnecessary appeals. Park v. Essa Tex. Corp., 158 Tex. 269, 271, 311 S.W.2d 228, 230 (1958). The irony in the majority's holding becomes even more apparent when one considers that the trial court is required to submit a jury question when there is "some evidence" to support the issue, even where the jury's affirmative answer would be based on factually insufficient evidence, Brown v. Goldstein, 685 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tex. 1985), or would be against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.

  3. Angelina County v. McFarland

    374 S.W.2d 417 (Tex. 1964)   Cited 60 times
    Describing operation of rule

    If a motion for new trial is filed, Rule 386 provides for the time to begin to run when the motion is overruled. This court in Park v. Essa Texas Corp., 158 Tex. 269, 311 S.W.2d 228 (1958) held that when there had been a non-jury case and the appellant had filed a motion for new trial, though no motion was required, his time began to run from the overruling of his motion. Here, however, Respondent filed no motion for new trial. It has been heretofore established that the appellant must base his appeal upon his own actions. Peurifoy v. Wiebusch, 125 Tex. 207, 82 S.W.2d 624 (1935); Neuhoff Bros., Packers v. Acosta, 160 Tex. 124, 327 S.W.2d 434 (1959).

  4. Continental Cas. Co. v. Street

    364 S.W.2d 184 (Tex. 1963)   Cited 19 times
    Noting that opinion withdrawn by appellate court has no binding effect

    Inasmuch as the opinion of that date has been withdrawn by the Court of Civil Appeals it no longer possesses any binding effect. Park v. Essa Texas Corporation, 158 Tex. 269, 311 S.W.2d 228. As this cause belongs to a class over which the Court of Civil Appeals ordinarily has final jurisdiction under Article 1821, we think the proper order to be entered is one remanding this cause to said court for further proceedings.

  5. City of Leon Valley v. Martinez

    No. 04-19-00879-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 21, 2020)

    The withdrawn opinion has no precedential value. See Park v. Essa Tex. Corp., 311 S.W.2d 228, 231 (Tex. 1958) ("The [court of appeals'] withdrawn opinion is without force as a precedent."); Walden v. Affiliated Computer Servs., Inc., 97 S.W.3d 303, 330 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) ("[T]his court has since withdrawn its opinion in Smith, and thus that opinion has no precedential value."). /s/_________

  6. In re Norris

    371 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. App. 2012)   Cited 8 times

    Such a process is wasteful, to say the least. Cf. Park v. Essa Tex. Corp., 158 Tex. 269, 311 S.W.2d 228, 230 (1958) (“If a litigant has a right to file a motion for new trial and does so, it would cause considerable confusion if his time for appeal began upon the rendition of judgment rather than upon the overruling of his motion. He would, at the same time, be urging his motion in the trial court and appealing.

  7. W.B. v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services

    82 S.W.3d 739 (Tex. App. 2002)   Cited 9 times
    Noting that a parent's request that the child be placed in his sibling's custody "would be evidence supporting preservation of the parent-child relationship."

    However, a party appealing the sufficiency of evidence in a non-jury trial need not present an objection or motion to preserve appellate review. See Tex.R.Civ.P. 324; Tex.R.App.P. 33.1; Park v. Essa Tex. Corp., 311 S.W.2d 228, 229 (Tex. 1958); Regan v. Lee, 879 S.W.2d 133, 136 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist] 1994, no writ). Because W.B. is challenging the sufficiency of evidence from a non-jury trial, we may address his appeal.

  8. B M Mach Co v. Avionic Enterprises Inc.

    561 S.W.2d 558 (Tex. Civ. App. 1978)   Cited 2 times

    Rules 354 and 356, Tex.R.Civ.P. No motion for new trial was filed which would have extended the time for filing the cost bond. Though it is not necessary to file a motion for new trial in a non-jury case, if such a motion is timely filed, however, it extends the time for filing the cost bond until thirty days after the order overruling the motion for new trial or thirty days after the motion for new trial has been overruled by operation of law. Park v. Essa Texas Corporation, 158 Tex. 269, 311 S.W.2d 228 (1958); Rule 356, supra. The filing of the cost bond within thirty days is mandatory and jurisdictional and the failure to timely file the bond is fatal to the appeal.

  9. Owens v. Owens

    540 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. Civ. App. 1976)

    She is not limited to the assignments of error listed in her motion for a new trial because such a motion is not required in a non-jury case. In Park v. ESSA Texas Corporation, 158 Tex. 269, 311 S.W.2d 228 (1958), the court said: `In a nonjury case, as this case is treated, a motion for new trial is not a prerequisite to appeal. Rule 324.

  10. Midland-Guardian Co. v. Mercantile Credit Corp.

    516 S.W.2d 246 (Tex. Civ. App. 1974)   Cited 1 times

    They are not to be considered at all in making that determination. The following cases support the holdings that we hereinabove make: A. F. Jones & Sons v. Republic Supply Co., 151 Tex. 90, 246 S.W.2d 853 (1952); Park v. Essa Texas Corporation, 158 Tex. 269, 311 S.W.2d 228 (1958); Curtis v. Carey, 378 S.W.2d 418 (Corpus Christi, Tex.Civ .App., 1964, no writ hist.); Ferree's Band Instrument Tools & S., Inc. v. Claxton, 472 S.W.2d 334 (Corpus Christi, Tex.Civ.App., 1971, no writ hist.)