in Re Vaishangi, Inc.
Texas Supreme Court
1Per curiam
In this mandamus proceeding, we must decide whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enforce a Rule 11 agreement when the defendant filed a motion to enforce almost one year after the case had been dismissed. We hold that the Rule 11 agreement was not an agreed judgment. Because the trial court’s plenary power expired thirty days after the dismissal order, the court lacked power to enforce the agreement. We conditionally grant relief.
The relators, Vaishangi, Inc., Shivangi, Inc., Meena Patel, and Vinayak K. Patel (collectively, Vaishangi), entered into a commercial real estate lien note…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 2001
- In Re Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.Texas Supreme Court · 2000
- Padilla v. LaFranceTexas Supreme Court · 1995
- In Re Ford Motor Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1998
- West v. SolitoTexas Supreme Court · 1978
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by61 opinions
- in Re Essex Insurance CompanyTexas Supreme Court · 2014
- Infinite Security Solutions, L.L.C. v. Karam Properties II, Ltd.Ohio Supreme Court · 2015
- In re Wilmington Trust, National Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2017
- In re Houston County ex rel. SessionCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2015
- In re S.J.Court of Appeals of Texas · 2017
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.