Legal Opinion

Padilla v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)

Decided July 15, 2002No. 04-01-00527-CVPublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

PHIL HARDBERGER, Chief Justice.

Ricardo G. Padilla (“Padilla”) appeals his disbarment. Padilla raises three points of error, contending: (1) he was not given 45 days notice as required by rule 245 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) trial de novo in the district court was improper; and (3) the trial court improperly considered hearsay evidence in rendering its decision. We overrule each of Padilla’s points of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Background

The Commission for Lawyer Discipline (“Commission”) filed a disciplinary petition against Padilla based on a…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. City of Brownsville v. AlvaradoTexas Supreme Court · 1995
  2. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Price, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)1992
  3. Favaloro v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2000

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Michael Abend v. Federal National Mortgage AssociationCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2015
  2. Hoog v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2002
  3. $2,424.21 in U.S. Currency and 2013 Volkswagen Passat v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)2019
  4. Eufemia Z. Campos and Hortensia Greene v. Nueces County, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2008
  5. Templeton Mortgage Corporation v. Gary M. Poenisch, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2015

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