Legal Opinion · Dissent

Dikeman v. Snell

Texas Supreme Court

Decided January 24, 1973No. B-3362Published

1DissentMcGEE, Justice

I respectfully dissent.

I disagree with the holding of the majority that the Relator has carried his burden of showing that the nunc pro tunc judgment was an attempt to correct a judicial error in the prior judgment after same had become final.

Rule 329b1 does not prohibit a judge from rendering at any time a nunc pro tunc judgment to make the record of the court reflect the judgment actually rendered. In other words, a clerical error in the record of the court may be corrected by a nunc pro tunc judgment even after the judgment becomes final by operation of Rule 329b.2 In order for this Court…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. McEwen v. HarrisonTexas Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Fulton v. FinchTexas Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Comet Aluminum Company v. DibrellTexas Supreme Court · 1970
  4. Lone Star Cement Corporation v. FairTexas Supreme Court · 1971
  5. Finlay v. JonesTexas Supreme Court · 1968

9 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