Legal Opinion · Dissent

MCI Sales and Service, Inc. v. Hinton

Texas Supreme Court

Decided December 17, 2010No. 09-0048Published

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

  1. Amstadt v. United States Brass Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Claude Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc., Pittsburgh Corning Corporation and Asbestos Corporation LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1998
  3. Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc.District Court, E.D. Texas · 1990
  4. Hall v. White, Getgey, Meyer Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2006
  5. 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.

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

Powered by the Exa API