Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Yevak v. Yevak

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided June 17, 1986No. 9463Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

GRANT, Justice,

partially concurring and partially dissenting.

I concur with the majority that this case should be reversed and remanded to the trial court; however, I dissent on the majority ruling that the purpose for remanding the cause is for a determination of whether sufficient cause exists to strike the plea in intervention.

With careful ambiguities, the majority has avoided addressing the issues in the case and has reached an enigmatic conclusion. The majority opinion requires a hearing to allow the introduction of evidence on the question of whether sufficient cause to strike the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Mendez v. BrewerTexas Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Wilson v. County of CalhounCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1972
  3. Rogers v. SearleCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1976
  4. Pratt v. Texas Department of Human ResourcesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1981
  5. Mulcahy v. Houston Steel Drum CompanyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1966

7 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