Enriquez v. Livingston
Court of Appeals of Texas
1DissentBob Pemberton, Justice
In light of the arguments presented by the State in its motion for rehearing regarding the timeliness of Enriquez’s motion to reinstate, I can no longer conclude that the district court abused its discretion when it denied the motion without an oral hearing. Because the majority holds otherwise, I respectfully dissent.
We are to review a dismissal for want of prosecution and the subsequent denial of a motion to reinstate under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See Smith v. Babcock & Wilcox Constr. Co., 913 S.W.2d 467, 467-68 (Tex.1995); Stale v. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d 507, 509 (Tex.1984); Brown…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Houston v. LackSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1985
- BMC Software Belgium, NV v. MarchandTexas Supreme Court · 2002
- Worford v. StamperTexas Supreme Court · 1991
- Walker v. GutierrezTexas Supreme Court · 2003
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.