Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Morrow v. Port Arthur Independent School District

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided November 30, 1978No. 8208Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKeith, Justice

I am in accord with the determination that defendant could have properly raised its jurisdictional point by a motion for summary judgment or by special exception under Tex.R.Civ.P. 90 (1967), as interpreted in McCamey v. Kinnear, 484 S.W.2d 150, 152-153 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1972, writ ref’d n. r. e.). I do not agree that these two procedures are exclusive or that the trial court erred in dismissing the case because plaintiff’s pleadings failed to state a cause of action.

Plaintiff’s petition contains three numbered paragraphs and a prayer. The first paragraph identifies the parties. The…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Barr v. BernhardTexas Supreme Court · 1978
  2. McCamey v. KinnearCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1972
  3. Lone Star Gas Company v. MurchisonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1962
  4. Campsey v. BrumleyTexas Commission of Appeals · 1932
  5. Coleman v. Beaumont Independent School DistrictCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1973

4 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