Legal Opinion

Scott v. Poindexter

Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)

Decided March 21, 2001No. 04-98-00101-CVPublishedCited by 5 opinions

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

  1. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 2001
  2. St. Amant v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  3. Casso v. BrandTexas Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Mafrige v. RossTexas Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Brown v. Bank of Galveston, National Ass'nTexas Supreme Court · 1998

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Olympic Arms, Inc. v. Green, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2004
  2. Seley-Radtke v. HosmaneCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2016
  3. Olympic Arms, Inc v. Philip R. Green, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2004
  4. Scott v. Poindexter, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2001
  5. Seley-Radtke v. HosmaneCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API