Legal Opinion

Candelier v. Ringstaff

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)

Decided February 15, 1990No. 09-88-237 CVPublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BURGESS, Justice.

Appellants R.A. Candelier and M.C. Candelier bring this limited appeal from the bench trial of a will contest. Appellants successfully contested the probate of the purported will of Chester A. Candelier and appeal the award of expenses and attorney’s fees to John Ringstaff, the will proponent.

Appellants’ first four points of error urge the trial court erred in permitting appellee to file a trial amendment adding a request for recovery of expenses and attorney’s fees after the case was submitted to the court that year. The court announced its decision October 23, 1987.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Englander Co. v. KennedyTexas Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Yowell v. Piper Aircraft Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Rocha v. Ahmad, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1984
  4. Smith v. Smith, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1986
  5. Mergele v. HoustonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1968

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Mitchell v. LaFlamme, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2000
  2. Exxon Corp. v. Makofski Ex Rel. Makofski, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2003
  3. Fort Bend County v. Texas Parks & Wildlife CommissionCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1991
  4. In Re Estate of Huff, Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)2000
  5. Steger & Bizzell, Inc. v. Vandewater Construction, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1991

14 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