Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.
Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)
1Opinion of the Court
opinion on Rehearing
WANDA McKEE FOWLER, Justice.
In their motion for rehearing, Douglas and Virginia Lehmann assert that this Court erroneously dismissed their appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Although we reluctantly vote to overrule the motion, we write to address the unfortunate consequences of the application of the Texas Supreme Court’s holdings in Mafrige v. Ross, 866 S.W.2d 590 (Tex.1993), and Inglish v. Union State Bank, 945 S.W.2d 810 (Tex.1997). As discussed below, this case illustrates how Mafrige and Inglish cause inequitable results. We have seen it on more than a few occasions at…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- North East Independent School District v. AldridgeTexas Supreme Court · 1966
- Mafrige v. RossTexas Supreme Court · 1994
- Teer v. DuddlestenTexas Supreme Court · 1984
- Bandera Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. GilchristTexas Supreme Court · 1997
- Inglish v. Union State BankTexas Supreme Court · 1997
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 2001
- Darr v. Altman, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2000
- Allen v. W.A. Virnau & Sons, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)2000
- Rodriguez v. NBC BANK, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1999
- Midkiff v. Hancock East Texas Sanitation, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)1999
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.