Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Canas v. Centerpoint Energy Resources Corp.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided November 27, 2013No. 14-11-01055-CVPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMartha Hill Jamison, Justice

I am unable to join either of the other two opinions in their entirety. I write separately for the following reasons.

Limitations of CenterPoint’s Summary-Judgment Motion. CenterPoint filed a hybrid motion for summary judgment, but the only ground on which it urged a no-evidenee point was that the Canas Parties “have offered no evidence that CenterPoint had actual knowledge of any dangerous condition” on the property prior to the fire. My colleagues seem to hold that CenterPoint moved for both traditional and no-evidence summary judgment on all claims, but I respectfully disagree. I would hold…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Bean v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)1998
  2. Occidental Permian Ltd. v. Helen Jones Foundation, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API