Roming v. McDonald

9 Citing cases

  1. Strange v. Treasure City

    608 S.W.2d 604 (Tex. 1980)   Cited 38 times
    Holding that jury's misconduct by twice casually mentioning insurance did not warrant new trial, where no amount of insurance coverage was discussed and there was no testimony that the amount of verdict was increased after mention of insurance

    Whether the alleged misconduct has occurred is a question of fact, and if there is conflicting evidence on this issue, the finding of the trial court is binding on appellate review. If, however, the evidence of misconduct is not conflicting, a reviewing court is not bound by a finding of the trial court which is contrary to conclusive evidence. Brawley v. Bowen, 387 S.W.2d 383 (Tex. 1965); State v. Wair, 163 Tex. 69, 351 S.W.2d 878 (1961); Roming v. McDonald, 514 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1974, writ ref'd n. r. e.). Here the trial court was not requested to and did not make findings of fact and conclusions of law.

  2. Golden v. Ballard Co.

    654 S.W.2d 823 (Tex. App. 1983)

    If, however, the evidence of misconduct is not conflicting, a reviewing court is not bound by a finding of the trial court which is contrary to conclusive evidence. Strange; Roming v. McDonald, 514 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.Civ.App. — El Paso 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The reception of any evidence by the jury outside of that produced at the trial is grounds for setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial whenever there is sufficient ground to believe that one of the parties has been prejudiced thereby.

  3. Tucker v. Lightfoot

    653 S.W.2d 587 (Tex. App. 1983)   Cited 2 times

    Whether the alleged misconduct has occurred is a question of fact, and if there is conflicting evidence on this issue, the finding of the trial court is binding on appellate review. If, however, the evidence of misconduct is not conflicting, a reviewing court is not bound by a finding of the trial court which is contrary to conclusive evidence. Brawley v. Bowen, 387 S.W.2d 383 (Tex. 1965); State v. Wair, 163 Tex. 69, 351 S.W.2d 878 (1961); Roming v. McDonald, 514 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.Civ.App. — El Paso 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.).Strange v. Treasure City, 608 S.W.2d 604, 606 (Tex. 1980).

  4. Treasure City v. Strange

    590 S.W.2d 816 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979)   Cited 3 times

    If the evidence offered relative to the fact of misconduct is conflicting, the finding of the trial court is binding on review; however, if the evidence is conclusive, the reviewing court is not bound by ruling of the trial court contrary to the conclusive evidence. Roming v. McDonald, 514 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1974, writ ref'd n. r. e.). Nor is the reviewing court bound by a fact finding of the trial court contrary to the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence.

  5. Lewis v. Yaggi

    584 S.W.2d 487 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979)   Cited 16 times

    Also very significant is the presence or absence of discussion of the improper matters. Pope, Jury Misconduct and Harm, 12 Baylor L.Rev. 355, 364 (1960); see, e.g., Roming v. McDonald, 514 S.W.2d 129, 130 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.). In the instant case, the offending statement concerning a purported settlement offer was, at most, made once and repeated once. There is no evidence of a discussion of the matter among the jurors.

  6. Naranjo v. Cull

    569 S.W.2d 529 (Tex. Civ. App. 1978)   Cited 6 times

    00 awarded to the appellant has ample support in the evidence for the injuries sustained. Especially is this so when we consider that damage issue (hereafter set out) precluded the jury from awarding any damages regarding appellant's car. See Fountain v. Ferguson, supra and Roming v. McDonald, 514 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1974, writ ref'd n. r. e.). Appellant contends, however, that there is sufficient evidence to prove the harmful effect of Mrs. Corner's comments. He points to the jurors' mistaken action in placing answers next to a list of elements to be considered when awarding damages in special issue number two which appeared as follows:

  7. Baucum v. Statewide Hot Shot

    550 S.W.2d 156 (Tex. Civ. App. 1977)   Cited 12 times

    Our full review of the record reveals to us that there is a conflict in the testimony as to whether there was in fact a statement made that it did not matter how the jury answered issues 1 and 2. Where the evidence is conflicting as to the occurrence of misconduct, the decision of the trial court either way on the question is final. Trousdale v. Texas New Orleans Railroad Co., supra; Barrington v. Duncan, 140 Tex. 510, 169 S.W.2d 462 (1943); Roming v. McDonald, 514 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Vahlsing Christina Corporation v. Ryman Well Service, Inc., 512 S.W.2d 803 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1974, no writ). Moreover, where the trial court, as here, made no specific findings of fact as to whether the alleged misconduct occurred, it is presumed that the trial court found that the misconduct did not occur, if there is evidence to support such a finding. Barrington v. Duncan, supra; Monkey Grip Rubber Co. v. Walton, 122 Tex. 185, 53 S.W.2d 770 (1932, opinion adopted).

  8. Texas Emp. Ins. Ass'n v. Moore

    549 S.W.2d 37 (Tex. Civ. App. 1977)   Cited 4 times

    If the evidence offered at the hearing on the motion for new trial is conflicting as to whether misconduct occurred, the decision of the trial Court on the question is binding on appeal. Roming v. McDonald, 514 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1974, writ ref'd n. r. e.). The bailiff testified that he removed the sign from the room and stated that if anyone had been looking, they could have seen it.

  9. Carson v. Bryan

    532 S.W.2d 711 (Tex. Civ. App. 1976)   Cited 7 times

    The burden was on the defendant to prove the act which he alleges. Roming v. McDonald, 514 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.Civ.App. — El Paso 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Defendant-appellant's points of error are overruled except as above stated.