MCI Sales and Service, Inc. v. Hinton
Texas Supreme Court
1DissentChief Justice Jefferson
At the time this case was submitted to the jury, James Hinton1 had neither re-*506eeived nor been promised any payments to settle his claims. Because the Court nevertheless concludes that Central Texas’ payments to the bankruptcy court’s registry rendered it a “settling person,” I respectfully dissent in part.
1. The statute requires courts to evaluate settling persons “at the time of submission.”
Former section 33.011 — the statutory provision applicable here — defined “settling person” as:
a person who at the time of submission has paid or promised to pay money or anything of monetary value to a…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Amstadt v. United States Brass Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1996
- Claude Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc., Pittsburgh Corning Corporation and Asbestos Corporation LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1998
- Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc.District Court, E.D. Texas · 1990
- Hall v. White, Getgey, Meyer Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2006
- Haskel Shelton McNair and Mattie Erlene McNair v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, the Celotex Corporation, and Raymark IndustriesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1989
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.