Diaz v. Attorney General of State of Tex.
Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District
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
- Guaranty Federal Savings Bank v. Horseshoe Operating Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1990
- Central Education Agency v. BurkeTexas Supreme Court · 1986
- Mercure Co., NV v. Rowland, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1986
- Comal County Rural High School District No 705 v. NelsonTexas Supreme Court · 1958
- 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.