Teco-Westinghouse Motor Co. v. Gonzalez

6 Citing cases

  1. Renzenberger v. O'Bryant

    No. 13-05-090-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 9, 2005)   Cited 5 times
    Concluding that movant's reply, which included new venue allegations and evidence, constituted a timely amended motion to transfer venue when it was filed before trial court ruled on the original motion to transfer

    The plaintiff bears the burden of proof to establish prima facie proof of each joinder element. See id. at 602-03; Teco-Westinghouse Motor Co. v. Gonzalez, 54 S.W.3d 910, 913 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.). If the defendant offers no rebuttal evidence, the inquiry is over.

  2. Texas Mutual Insurance Co. v. East Side Surgery Center, Inc.

    159 S.W.3d 155 (Tex. App. 2004)   Cited 3 times
    Holding multiple class actions brought by medical service providers against insurance companies for payment practices in violation of the worker's compensation statutory scheme would lead to inconsistent judgments sufficient to establish essential need

    (Tex.Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. ยง 15.003Copr.); Surgitek v. Abel, 997 S.W.2d 598, 603 (Tex. 1999); Teco-Westinghouse Motor Co. v. Gonzalez, 54 S.W.3d 910, 913 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.). An appellate court "is not constrained solely to review the pleadings and affidavits, but should consider the entire record, including any evidence presented at the hearing."

  3. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. Valero Energy Corp.

    143 S.W.3d 859 (Tex. App. 2004)   Cited 2 times
    Holding plaintiff raising claims directed to the scope of a settlement agreement that involved other plaintiffs had established essential need based on collateral estoppel, which would deny some plaintiffs "their day in court"

    The plaintiffs bear the burden to establish prima facie proof of each joinder and intervention element. See id. at 602-03; Teco-Westinghouse Motor Co. v. Gonzalez, 54 S.W.3d 910, 913 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.). All properly pleaded venue facts are taken as true unless specifically denied by an opposing party.

  4. Smith v. Adair

    96 S.W.3d 700 (Tex. App. 2003)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that convenience, judicial economy, and sharing of costs do not establish essential need

    We have found only one post- Surgitek case in Texas in which an essential need was found to exist. In Teco-Westinghouse Motor Co. v. Gonzalez, 54 S.W.3d 910, 917 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.), the Corpus Christi court found that, when an indispensable witness (who worked in Monterrey, Mexico) could not be available for a trial held away from the state border, an essential need existed to conduct the trial in Cameron County (the county containing Brownsville and Harlingen). The court also acknowledged that, under Surgitek, Bristol-Myers Corp. v. Abel, 997 S.W.2d 598 (Tex. 1999), a mere need to pool resources is insufficient. Teco-Westinghouse Motor Co. v. Gonzalez, 54 S.W.3d 910, 915 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.).

  5. Seureau v. Exxonmobil

    274 S.W.3d 206 (Tex. App. 2008)   Cited 92 times
    Holding that fraud is intentional tort for which TTCA provides no waiver of immunity

    Texas law prescribes a four-year statute of limitations for fraud actions, including claims for fraudulent concealment. See Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. ยง 16.004(a) (Vernon 2002); Williams v. Khalaf, 802 S.W.2d 651, 658 (Tex. 1990); Teco-Westinghouse Motor Co. v. Gonzalez, 54 S.W.3d 910, 912 n. 2 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.). A cause of action for fraud accrues on the date that the defendant makes the allegedly false representations.

  6. Wells Fargo Bank Texas, N.A. v. Barton

    100 S.W.3d 455 (Tex. App. 2003)   Cited 3 times

    The issue before this court on interlocutory appeal is not whether venue for the original lawsuit is properly set in Duval County but whether the appellees were entitled to join that lawsuit. See Teco-Westinghouse Motor Co. v. Gonzalez, 54 S.W.3d 910, 912 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.). DISCUSSION