Hunt Oil Co. v. Moore, 639 S.W.2d 459 (Tex. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Hunt Oil Co. v. Moore, 639 S.W.2d 459 (Tex. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …any award of damages based on the accounting necessarily had to occur at a subsequent time. at p. 460 ✓
46 citation events (22 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Patricia J. Sherer v. James Ray Sherer and Gloria Jean Sherer (f/K/A Gloria Jean Roberson), Individually and James Ray Sherer as Power-Of-Attorney for Bertha M. Sherer (texapp, 2013-01-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Patricia J. Sherer v. James Ray Sherer and Gloria Jean Sherer (f/K/A Gloria Jean Roberson), Individually and James Ray Sherer as Power-Of-Attorney for Bertha M. Sherer
Tex. App. · 2013 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
any award of damages based on the accounting necessarily had to occur at a subsequent time.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Elishah Sawyers, Pax Crate & Freight, Inc. and Robin Sawyers v. Marc Carter and Sally Carter (2×) also: Cited "see"
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Hunt Oil Co. v. Moore, 639 S.W.2d 459, 460 (Tex. 1982) (per curiam) (holding that summary judgment was interlocutory, reasoning that judgment awarded damages requiring a future accounting and that “judgment did not address [the plaintiff’s] claim for 4 prejudgment interest”); Rosedale Parts., Ltd. v. 131st Judicial Dist.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Elishah Sawyers, Pax Crate & Freight, Inc. and Robin Sawyers v. Marc Carter and Sally Carter (2×) also: Cited "see"
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Moreover, in Hunt Oil Co. v. find that the following requests were made: Moore, 639 S.W.2d 459, 460 (Tex. 1982), a judgment, In addition to this sum [the $ which did not mention the claim for prejudgment inter- 7,047,841.20], accrued interest as allowed est, was considered Interlocutory until the court entered by law is also accumulating on the past another judgment which tracked the language of the first due sum shown above, and recovery of judgment and added language which denied all other this interest from the date of such con- relief not expressly [**18] granted.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sherer v. Sherer
Tex. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Hunt Oil Co. v. Moore, 639 S.W.2d 459, 460 (Tex.1982) (“Any award of damages based on the accounting necessarily had to occur at a subsequent time.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Zamarripa v. Sifuentes (2×) also: Cited "see"
Tex. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
We find it indistinguishable from Hunt Oil Co. v. Moore, 639 S.W.2d 459, 460 (Tex.1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rosedale Partners, Ltd. v. 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County
Tex. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
Moreover, in Hunt Oil Co. v. Moore, 639 S.W.2d 459, 460 (Tex.1982), a judgment, which did not mention the claim for prejudgment interest, was considered interlocutory until the court entered another judgment which tracked the language of the first judgment and added language which denied all other relief not expressly granted.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ross v. Arkwright Mutual Insurance Co. (2×)
Tex. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Teer v. Duddleston, 664 S.W.2d 702, 703 (Tex.1984); Hunt Oil Co. v. Moore, 639 S.W.2d 459, 460 (Tex. 1982); Pan American Petroleum Corp., 324 S.W.2d at 200 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Smith Protective Services v. Martin
Tex. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
Hunt Oil Company v. Moore, 639 S.W.2d 459, 460 (Tex.1982); and MacNelly v. Cameron County, 590 S.W.2d 182, 184 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1979, no writ).
discussed Cited "see" Billie J. Navarra v. James M. Landeen, M.D.
Tex. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hunt Oil Co. v. Moore , 639 S.W.2d 459, 460 (Tex. 1982) (summary judgment ordering accounting and not addressing prejudgment-interest claim was interlocutory).
cited Cited "see" Ambrose v. MacK
Tex. App. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hunt Oil Co. v. Moore, 639 S.W.2d 459, 460 (Tex.1982) (partial summary judgment which declared lease terminated and ordered an accounting held not final).
cited Cited "see" Hunt Oil Co. v. Moore
Tex. App. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hunt Oil Company v. Willis Moore, 629 S.W.2d 260 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1982, rev’d and remanded with per curiam 639 S.W.2d 459 (Tex.1982). 2 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." McDonough v. Williamson
Tex. App. · 1987 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Hunt Oil Co. v. Moore, 639 S.W.2d 459 (Tex.1982) (judgment interlocutory because it ordered a future accounting from which damages would then be assessed).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Texas Employers' Insurance Association v. Leroy Jackson (2×)
5th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Hunt Oil Co. v. Moore, 639 S.W.2d 459 (Tex.1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
HUNT OIL COMPANY, Et Al., Petitioners,
v.
Willis MOORE, Trustee, Respondent
C-1219.
Texas Supreme Court.
Jul 21, 1982.
639 S.W.2d 459
1982 Tex. LEXIS 324
Shank, Irwin, Conant & Williamson, Ralph B. Shank, Drew R. Heard and Jay A. Brandt, Dallas, for petitioners., Kliewer & Hood, Edward Kliewer, Jr. and Frank G. McDonald, Dallas, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 25 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Willis Moore, Trustee, brought suit against Hunt Oil Company and others (Hunt Oil) seeking to have a lease declared terminated, to have cloud on title removed, and to have title quieted in himself. Additionally, Moore sought to recover damages and prejudgment interest. Both parties filed Motions for Summary Judgment. The trial court entered a “Partial Summary Judgment” granting Moore’s motion. This judgment declared the lease terminated, quieted title in Moore and ordered the cloud be removed. The Partial Summary Judgment further ordered that Hunt Oil “render an accounting to [Moore] for all oil, gas and other minerals produced ... which is attributable to [Moore’s interest].” Moore was awarded costs of the suit, but the judgment did not mention Moore’s claim for prejudgment interest.

After the accounting was completed by Hunt Oil, Moore filed a Motion for Final Judgment. The court entered a Final Judgment on May 16,1980. The final judgment tracked the Partial Summary Judgment and then ordered that Hunt Oil pay Moore the sum of $377,058.52 together with 9% interest. The judgment denied all other relief not expressly granted.

Moore and Hunt Oil filed separate appeals. Hunt Oil appealed from the trial court’s order terminating the lease, vesting title in Moore and awarding damages based on the accounting. Moore filed a motion to dismiss Hunt Oil’s appeal. Moore alleged that the Partial Summary Judgment was in fact a final appealable judgment from which Hunt Oil should have perfected its appeal. Thus, Moore alleged, Hunt Oil did not timely perfect its appeal. The court of appeals granted Moore’s motion and dis[*460] missed Hunt’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. 629 S.W.2d 260.

The court of appeals relied on Ferguson v. Ferguson, 161 Tex. 184, 338 S.W.2d 945 (1960), in dismissing Hunt Oil’s appeal. In Ferguson, the court ordered an accounting be made and further ordered that one-half of the profits be paid to the plaintiff. This judgment was considered final and appeala-ble because “[tjhere remains only the rendering of one-half of the profits over a definite period of time.... ” Id. at 338 S.W.2d at 947.

As this Court held in Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 159 Tex. 550, 324 S.W.2d 200 (1959), however, “a summary judgment which does not dispose of all parties and issues in the pending suit is interlocutory and not appealable.... ” The “Partial Summary Judgment” entered in this case only established ownership in the leasehold estate and ordered an accounting to be filed in the future. Any award of damages based on the accounting necessarily had to occur at a subsequent time. See Perkins v. Springstun, 557 S.W.2d 343 (Tex.Civ.App.— Austin 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Further, the judgment did not address Moore’s claim for prejudgment interest.

The Partial Summary Judgment did not dispose of all issues, therefore, it was interlocutory and unappealable. Hunt Oil timely perfected its appeal from the Final Judgment and the court of appeals erred in dismissing the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Pursuant to Rule 438 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, we grant the writ of error and, without hearing oral argument, reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause to the court of appeals for consideration of the merits of the appeal.