Scott v. Poindexter
Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
1Opinion of the Court
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Justice CATHERINE STONE.
On original submission of this case we noted that “[t]his appeal presents still another question about the finality of a partial summary judgment which grants more relief than requested and appears final because of the inclusion of a ‘Mother Hubbard clause.’ ” During the pendency of Appellant’s motion for rehearing en banc, the Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion intended to clarify the effect of a Mother Hubbard clause in a summary judgment. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 44 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 364 (2001). We deny Appellant’s motion…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 2001
- St. Amant v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Casso v. BrandTexas Supreme Court · 1989
- Mafrige v. RossTexas Supreme Court · 1994
- Brown v. Bank of Galveston, National Ass'nTexas Supreme Court · 1998
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Olympic Arms, Inc. v. Green, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2004
- Seley-Radtke v. HosmaneCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2016
- Olympic Arms, Inc v. Philip R. Green, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2004
- Scott v. Poindexter, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2001
- Seley-Radtke v. HosmaneCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2016