Legal Opinion

Smith Barney Shearson, Inc. v. Finstad

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)

Decided November 23, 1994No. 01-94-00575-CVPublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HUTSON-DUNN, Justice.

Appellants (collectively, “Shearson”)2 bring this accelerated appeal from an interlocutory order denying their motion to compel arbitration. We affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part.

Before reaching the merits of this case, we must dispose of two preliminary issues: 1) our jurisdiction to consider this interlocutory appeal; and 2) whether the trial court was required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in this case.

JURISDICTION

The first issue this Court must resolve is whether we have jurisdiction to consider this interlocutory appeal.…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. TippsTexas Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Cherokee Water Co. v. RossTexas Supreme Court · 1985
  3. James E. Morgan v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1984
  4. Brazoria County v. KnutsonTexas Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Merrill Lynch v. Eddings, Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)1992

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Prudential Securities Inc. v. MarshallTexas Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Tempest Broadcasting Corp. v. Imlay, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2004
  3. Porter & Clements, L.L.P. v. Stone, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1997
  4. Brown v. Anderson, Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)2003
  5. Carlin v. 3V INC., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)1996

22 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