Legal Opinion

Ludwig v. Enserch Corp.

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)

Decided December 3, 1992No. 01-91-01290-CVPublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

2Per curiam

On this day the Court considered the motion of appellee to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction, filed December 13, 1991, the response and motion of appellants to deem this appeal timely filed and for extension of time to file cash deposit in lieu of appeal bond, filed December 20, 1991, and appellee’s reply and response, filed January 8, 1992.

On September 30, 1991, appellants, plaintiffs below, filed their third amended petition, naming only appellee Enserch Corporation as a defendant party. An amended petition, by omitting a defendant, operates to voluntarily dismiss that…

3Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Webb v. JornsTexas Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Garcia v. Kastner Farms, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Davies v. MasseyTexas Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Schlipf v. Exxon Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Mercure Co., NV v. Rowland, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1986

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

4Cited by24 opinions

  1. Olivo v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1996
  2. Zapalac v. Cain, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2001
  3. CIGNA Insurance Co. v. TPG Store, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)1995
  4. White v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)1996
  5. DEADMON v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2011

19 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