Legal Opinion · Dissent

Schero v. Manges

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided February 23, 1983No. 16924Published

1DissentCantu, Justice

The majority opinion correctly disposes of appellant Schero’s first three points of error. However, I cannot agree that Schero’s final two contentions require the treatment accorded by the majority.

In order to properly understand appellee’s position with regard to Schero’s plea of privilege it is necessary to examine all of the exhibits admitted before the trial court upon stipulations.

In Schero’s answer to plaintiff Patterson’s Third Amended Original Petition, and in his cross-action against appellee Manges, Schero admitted to partial liability and sought contribution and indemnity from…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. De La Vega v. LeagueTexas Supreme Court · 1885
  2. Barton v. Farmers' State BankTexas Commission of Appeals · 1925
  3. Zachry v. Robertson Dba.Texas Supreme Court · 1948
  4. Bailey v. Federal Supply Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1926
  5. Rouse v. Shell Oil Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1979

10 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