in Re Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. and Viscount Properties II, L.P., D/B/A Hoy Fox toyota/lexus
Texas Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Jefferson
We have recently held that a trial court must explain with reasonable specificity *749why it has set aside a jury verdict and granted anew trial.1 Without such an explanation, parties in the case can only speculate about why the court ostensibly circumvented a critical constitutional right. The parties — and the public — are entitled to know why the trial court believes an injustice would occur if the jury’s verdict were to stand. In this case, the jury returned a verdict, and the trial court rendered a judgment in conformity with it. The trial court then ordered a new trial. The order is…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Pool v. Ford Motor Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1986
- Johnson v. Fourth Court of AppealsTexas Supreme Court · 1985
- In Re Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas, Subsidiary, L.P.Texas Supreme Court · 2009
- Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. GarzaTexas Supreme Court · 2004
- Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd. v. McShaneTexas Supreme Court · 2007
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by134 opinions
- United Scaffolding, Inc. v. James LevineTexas Supreme Court · 2017
- in Re Stacey Bent and Mark BentTexas Supreme Court · 2016
- In re DavenportTexas Supreme Court · 2017
- in Re: Zimmer, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2014
- in Re Whataburger Restaurants LpTexas Supreme Court · 2014
129 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.