Legal Opinion

Lamm v. Driskell

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided March 15, 1933No. 9021PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MURRAY, Justice.

On February 22, 1933, we granted the motion of defendants in error to strike from the record the statement of facts filed herein. The motion to strike was based upon the ground that the statement of facts was not approved and signed by the trial judge.

Plaintiff in error, E. J. Lamm, has filed his motion for a rehearing, which was submitted along with the main case. We find no reason to change our former ruling. A statement of facts not approved and signed by the trial judge does not meet the requirements of the law and cannot be considered by us as a proper statement of facts,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Amonette v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1922
  2. Bracewell v. BalentineCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1930
  3. Chancey v. Dayton-Goose Creek Ry. Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1926

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Sloan v. Sloan's Adm'rCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1938

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

Powered by the Exa API