Legal Opinion

City of Arlington v. Bardin

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided February 11, 1972No. 17275Published

1Opinion

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

In its motion for rehearing the appellant for the first time contends that Bell Aerospace Corporation, through its division, Bell Helicopter Company, is an indispensable party to this suit and cause of action and that since it is not a party to the suit this Court is therefore without jurisdiction to render judgment in this cause.

The jurisdiction of the Court over indispensable parties to a cause of ac*191tion is essential to the court’s right, power or authority to proceed to judgment. Proceeding in the absence of an indispensable party, being fundamental error,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Petroleum Anchor Equipment, Inc. v. TyraTexas Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Oak Park Trust & Savings Bank, Oak Park v. O'ByrneTexas Supreme Court · 1970

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

Powered by the Exa API