Legal Opinion · Dissent

Diaz v. Attorney General of State of Tex.

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District

Decided February 20, 1992No. 13-91-021-CVPublished

1DissentNye, Justice

I respectfully dissent. The majority finds that the Attorney General as inter-venor must, absolutely, file a pleading for his intervention to properly commence, reasoning that any other ruling would result in a policy which allows “oral lawsuits.” I find the majority’s concern over the danger of oral lawsuits to be wasted on the facts presented here. I would hold that the Attorney General’s intervention and the claims urged were issues litigated by consent. A more detailed recitation of what transpired at the hearing is necessary.

Two intervenors were present at the settlement hearing between…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Guaranty Federal Savings Bank v. Horseshoe Operating Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Central Education Agency v. BurkeTexas Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Mercure Co., NV v. Rowland, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1986
  4. Comal County Rural High School District No 705 v. NelsonTexas Supreme Court · 1958
  5. Highlands Insurance Co. v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1990

4 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