Legal Opinion

Culbertson v. Brodsky

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided August 7, 1989No. 2-89-080-CVPublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER AND OPINION

FARRIS, Justice.

Appellants Culbertsons have filed a motion for review of the trial court’s order setting the amount of supersedeas bond, complaining that it is excessive. See TEX. R.APP.P. 49(b). Culbertsons are appealing a judgment awarding appellee Brodsky, as grantee, specific performance of a real estate sales contract, $140,000 in attorney’s fees, and costs. The trial court set Cul-bertsons’ supersedeas bond at $588,400. The Culbertsons allege that they cannot post bond in the amount ordered by the court and if compelled to do so, will suffer irreparable injury. They…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. Texaco Inc. v. Pennzoil Company, State of Texas, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1986
  3. Joy v. JoyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1941
  4. Bachman v. NealCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1944

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Hughes v. Habitat Apartments, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1992
  2. Harvey v. StanleyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1989
  3. Hibernia Energy III, LLC v. Ferae Naturae, LLC, Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)2022
  4. Joan Gottlieb Mendell v. Laurence Scott and Rachel Chaput, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2022
  5. Reyes v. Credit Based Asset Servicing & Securitization Ex Rel. Pledged Property II LLC, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2005

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API