Dikeman v. Snell
Texas Supreme Court
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
- McEwen v. HarrisonTexas Supreme Court · 1961
- Fulton v. FinchTexas Supreme Court · 1961
- Comet Aluminum Company v. DibrellTexas Supreme Court · 1970
- Lone Star Cement Corporation v. FairTexas Supreme Court · 1971
- Finlay v. JonesTexas Supreme Court · 1968
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.