Scott v. Scott

2 Citing cases

  1. In re T.B.H.-H

    188 S.W.3d 312 (Tex. App. 2006)   Cited 6 times
    Noting trial court not authorized to vacate arbitration award that conflicted with settlement agreements where parties agreed to binding arbitration

    MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL Generally, a hearing on a motion for new trial is not mandatory. Scott v. Scott, 774 S.W.2d 307 (Tex.App.-Austin 1989, no writ). However, when the motion alleges facts, which if true, would entitle the movant to a new trial the court is obligated to hear such evidence.

  2. Thordson v. City of Houston

    809 S.W.2d 905 (Tex. App. 1991)   Cited 1 times

    The rule is well settled, however, that the opportunity for a hearing on a motion for new trial is not mandatory and the trial court does not abuse it's discretion in failing to conduct a hearing on a defective motion for new trial alleging jury misconduct when the allegations of the motion, even if proven, would be insufficient to show jury misconduct. Scott v. Scott, 774 S.W.2d 307 (Tex.App. — Austin 1989, no writ); Clancy v. Zale Corp., 705 S.W.2d 820 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Jordan v. Ortho Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 696 S.W.2d 228 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Boyett, 674 S.W.2d 782 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1984, no writ). Since motions to reinstate and motions for new trial are so nearly the same, we will apply the same rule.