Texas N. O. R. v. Goolsbee

3 Citing cases

  1. Flanigan v. Carswell

    159 Tex. 598 (Tex. 1959)   Cited 119 times
    In Flanigan v. Carswell, 159 Tex. 598, 324 S.W.2d 835 (1959), the Supreme Court set out the test to be used by this court in considering a cross-point complaining of the action of the trial court in ordering a remittitur.

    On the other hand, it has been held that the reviewing court must determine the order's propriety by deciding whether the trial judge abused his discretion in making the order. Thompson v. Clement, Tex.Civ.App., 202 S.W.2d 341, writ ref. n.r.e.; Adams v. Houston Lighting Power Co., Tex., 314 S.W.2d 826; Phoenix Refining Co. v. Morgan, Tex.Civ.App., 178 S.W.2d 175, writ ref. w. o. m.; see also Texas N. O. R. Co. v. Goolsbee, Tex.Civ.App., 238 S.W.2d 250. The Goolsbee case was before this Court on questions not involved here.

  2. Goolsbee v. Texas N. O. R. Co.

    150 Tex. 528 (Tex. 1951)   Cited 52 times
    Defining emergency generally as "a condition arising suddenly and unexpectedly . . . which calls for immediate action"

    Upon a second consideration of the case the Court of Civil Appeals, one of the justices dissenting, reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for a new trial. 238 S.W.2d 250, 252. We again granted petitioner's application for writ of error, and the case is now before us for final determination of the question of whether to permit the case to stand remanded or to affirm the trial court's judgment.

  3. Flanigan v. Carswell

    315 S.W.2d 295 (Tex. Civ. App. 1958)   Cited 2 times

    '* * * the trial court has the discretion to suggest remittitur of a stated amount as a condition on which a motion for a new trial will be overruled or a judgment affirmed where there is no other error and the court finds that the verdict of the jury is for an excessive amount.' Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Goolsbee, Tex.Civ.App., 238 S.W.2d 250, 254. Again the above cause reached the Supreme Court, 150 Tex. 528, 243 S.W.2d 386. That Court disagreed with the Court of Civil Appeals as to its announcements of the law under the doctrine of imminent peril, reversed the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and affirmed that of the trial court.