Legal Opinion

Rice v. Pinney

Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)

Decided March 20, 2001No. 05-00-00126-CVPublishedCited by 370 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Opinion by

Justice LAGARDE.

This forcible detainer case presents two jurisdictional issues. In their sole point of error, appellants Stephen G. Rice (“Rice”) and Sue L. Rice (collectively, the “Rices”) assert that the county court at law lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of possession because a wrongful foreclosure action between the same parties was pending in district court. Appellee Marc E. Pinney, by way of a cross-point, asserts that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the property at issue was not used for residential purposes only. Because we overrule both…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Scott Et Ux. v. HewittTexas Supreme Court · 1936
  2. Goggins v. LeoCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1993
  3. McGlothlin v. KliebertTexas Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Mitchell v. Armstrong Capital Corp., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1995
  5. Haith v. DrakeCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1980

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

3Cited by370 opinions

  1. Dormady v. Dinero Land & Cattle Co., LC, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2001
  2. Villalon v. Bank One, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2004
  3. Williams v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2010
  4. Ward v. Malone, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2003
  5. Shutter v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2010

365 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