At page 101 Permitting testimony when witness list is not provided38 citing casesholding that complaint on appeal must be the same as that presented in the trial court
- City Nat'l Bank of Sulphur Springs v. John Alexander Smith, No. 06-15-00013-CV (Tex. App.—Texarkana Sept. 17, 2015).publishedSee Banda v. Garcia, 955 S.W.2d 270, 272 (Tex.1997); Rogers v. Stell, 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex.1992). 3 At a hearing on October 6, 2003 the court made the following statements: [THE COURT]: The parties are incorrect, in that Mr. Pringle is…
- Debra Smith v. James East, Individually & D/B/A Avery Fine Wines & Spirits & Terri Bayless East, Individually & D/B/A Avery Fine Wines & Spirits, 411 S.W.3d 519 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013).published“Where trial objection is not the same as the complaint presented on appeal, the complaint is not preserved for appellate review.” A.G.E., Inc. v. Buford, 105 S.W.3d 667, 678 (Tex.App.-Austin 2003, pet. denied) (citing Rogers v. Stell, 835…
- Helen Pringle, Indep. of the Est. of Brantley Pringle v. Toby Moon, No. 02-04-00012-CV (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 10, 2005).publishedSee Banda v. Garcia , 955 S.W.2d 270, 272 (Tex. 1997); Rogers v. Stell , 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex. 1992). 3.
- Pringle v. Moon, 158 S.W.3d 607 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005).publishedSee Banda v. Garcia, 955 S.W.2d 270, 272 (Tex.1997); Rogers v. Stell, 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex.1992). 3 .At a hearing on October 6, 2003 the court made the following statements: [THE COURT]: The parties are incorrect, in that Mr. Pringle i…
- Stephen Edward Green, Sr. v. Linda Sue Garrett & Dom. Relations Off., No. 02-03-00045-CV (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 29, 2004).publishedApp. P. 33.1(a); Rogers v. Stell , 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex. 1992); Bushell v. Dean , 803 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1991) (op. on reh’g).
- In the Interest of Y.M.A. & Y.M.A, 111 S.W.3d 790 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003).publishedBanda v. Garcia, 955 S.W.2d 270, 272 (Tex.1997) (holding that an appellate court cannot reverse based on a complaint not raised in the trial court); Rogers v. Stell, 835 S.W.2d 100,101 (Tex.1992).
- In Re Yma, 111 S.W.3d 790 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003).publishedBanda v. Garcia, 955 S.W.2d 270, 272 (Tex. 1997) (holding that an appellate court cannot reverse based on a complaint not raised in the trial court); Rogers v. Stell, 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex.1992).
- in Re: Gambling Paraphernalia Devices, Equip., No. 12-01-00161-CV (Tex. App.—Tyler May 14, 2002).publishedRogers v. Stell , 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex. 1992).
- Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Anderson, 78 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002).published Rogers v. Stell, 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex.1992).
- Reliance Ins. Co. v. Denton Cent. Appraisal Dist., 999 S.W.2d 626 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999).publishedSee Banda v. Garcia, 955 S.W.2d 270, 272 (Tex. 1997); Rogers v. Stell, 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex. 1992).
Show 21 more citing cases
- Bayliner Marine Corp. v. Elder, 994 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1999).publishedRogers v. Stell, 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex.1992).
- Texas Dep't of Transp. v. Olson Ex Rel. Powell, 980 S.W.2d 890 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998).publishedSee Banda v. Garcia, 955 S.W.2d 270, 272 (Tex.1997); Rogers v. Stell, 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex.1992). 20 .
- Edwards v. Texas Emp. Comm'n, 936 S.W.2d 462 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1997).publishedRogers v. Stell, 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex.1992); Mixon v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins.
- Henderson v. Viesca, 922 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996).publishedRogers v. Stell, 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex.1992); Smith v. Southwest Feed Yards, 835 S.W.2d 89, 91 (Tex.1992).
- Hyman Farm Serv., Inc. v. Earth Oil & Gas Co., 920 S.W.2d 452 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1996).publishedTex.R.App.P. 52(a); Rogers v. Stell, 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex.1992).
- St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., Inc. v. Dal-Worth Tank, 917 S.W.2d 29 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1996).publishedTex.R.App.P. 52(a); Rogers v. Stell, 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex.1992).
- Solvex Sales Corp. v. Triton Mfg. Co., 888 S.W.2d 845 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1994).publishedRogers v. Stell, 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex.1992).
- Hanna v. Lott, 888 S.W.2d 132 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1994).publishedSmith v. Southwest Feed Yards, 835 S.W.2d 89, 90 (Tex.1992); Rogers v. Stell, 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex.1992); Henry S. Miller Company v. Bynum, 836 S.W.2d 160, 162 (Tex.1992).
- Texas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Green, 855 S.W.2d 136 (Tex. App.—Austin 1993).publishedSee Henry S. Miller Co. v. Bynum, 836 S.W.2d 160, 162 (Tex.1992); Rogers v. Stell, 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex.1992); Smith v. Southwest Feed Yards, 835 S.W.2d 89, 91 (Tex.1992).
- Texas Dep't of Human Servs. v. George Green, No. 03-92-00059-CV (Tex. App.—Austin May 19, 1993).publishedSee Henry S. Miller Co. v. Bynum , 836 S.W.2d 160, 162 (Tex. 1992); Rogers v. Stell , 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex. 1992); Smith v. Southwest Feed Yards , 835 S.W.2d 89, 91 (Tex. 1992).
- Builders Transp., Inc. v. Grice-Smith, 167 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005).published See Rogers v. Stell, 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex.1992) (per curiam); Hoxie Implement Co. v. Baker, 65 S.W.3d 140, 151 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2001, pet. denied).
- Builders Transp., Inc. (\BTI\") v. Grice-Smith (2004).publishedSee Rogers v. Stell , 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex. 1992) (per curiam); Hoxie Implement Co. v. Baker , 65 S.W.3d 140, 151 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 2001, pet. denied).
- A.G.E., Inc. v. Buford, 105 S.W.3d 667 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003).publishedSee Rogers v. Stell, 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex.1992).
- A.G.E., Inc./Henderson L. Buford, III v. Henderson L. Buford, III/A.G.E., Inc., No. 03-02-00198-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 20, 2003).publishedSee Rogers v. Stell , 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex. 1992).
- Reagan Nat'l Advert. of Austin, Inc. v. Capital Outdoors, Inc., 96 S.W.3d 490 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002).publishedSee Rogers v. Stell, 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex.1992).
- In the Interest of R.V., 977 S.W.2d 777 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998).published See Rogers v. Stell, 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex.1992); Mixon v. National Union Fire Ins.
- Texas Dep't of Pub. Saf. v. Bond, 955 S.W.2d 441 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1997).publishedSee Rogers v. Stell, 835 S.W.2d 100, 101 (Tex.1992); Mixon v. National Union Fire Ins.
- Miller v. Kennedy & Minshew, Prof'l Corp., 142 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004).published(holding that complaint on appeal must be the same as that presented in the trial court)
- Steger v. Muenster Drilling Co., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 359 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004).published(holding that complaint on appeal must be same as raised in trial court)
- Marjorie Maddox Steger, William L. (\Bill\") Steger (2003).published(holding that complaint on appeal must be same as raised in trial court)
- William J. Miller v. Kennedy & Minshew, Prof'l Corp. A/K/A Kennedy, Minshew, Campbell & Morris, P.C., & A/K/A Kennedy, Minshew & Campbell, P.C., & Robert Minshew, No. 02-01-00408-CV (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 20, 2003).published(holding that complaint on appeal must be the same as that presented in the trial court)
Other citing cases
- Guerrero v. Sanders, 846 S.W.2d 354 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1992).published
v.
Robert STELL and Mary Stell, Respondents.
G. David Westfall, Dallas, for petitioner.
James Lee Williams, Dallas, for respondents.
PER CURIAM.
We hold that an undisclosed individual party witness may testify at trial where the party did not respond to or supplement her response to an interrogatory seeking persons expected to be called at trial, but properly identified herself as a person with knowledge of relevant facts.
After a traffic accident, Robert and Mary Stell sued Belinda Rogers for property damage to their car. Among the twentythree interrogatories Rogers answered were the following: INTERROGATORY NO. 11: List the names and addresses of all persons who have knowledge of the facts of said occurrence or of the damages referred to in our Petition, and state what specific knowledge or information each such person possesses.
ANSWER: (1) Belinda Moore Rogers (2) Ellis C. Rogers (3) Mrs. Mary Stell
[*101] INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Give the name and address of any witness whom you intend to call to testify in this case.
Although she objected to both of these interrogatories, Rogers provided a response only to the first one, listing herself as a person having knowledge of relevant facts. She did not appear at the hearing. The trial court overruled all objections, refused to allow Rogers to testify in her own defense, and rendered judgment in the Stells' favor. The court of appeals affirmed. 828 S.W.2d 115.
Rogers correctly argues that our rules do not permit an interrogatory compelling a party to reveal the witnesses he expects to call at trial. However, she failed to preserve this argument because her only objections to the question were that it was excessively burdensome, an unnecessary expense, and harassment. See Gutierrez v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist, 729 S.W.2d 691, 693 (Tex.1987).
Rogers's response to Interrogatory No. 11, however, stated that she had knowledge of facts relevant to the accident. Her answers to the remaining interrogatories also clearly conveyed that Rogers witnessed the accident and provided her statement of what happened. On this basis, Rogers asserts there was good cause to admit her testimony under Tex.R.Civ.P. 215.5.[1]
We recently held in Smith v. Southwest Feed Yards, Ltd., 835 S.W.2d 89, 91 (Tex. 1992), that "where the answer to another query in a single, short set of interrogatories plainly indicated that the individual responding had knowledge of relevant facts, the trial court abused its discretion by failing to find `good cause' to permit that party's testimony." Rogers was clearly identified as having knowledge of relevant facts. The trial court abused its discretion in barring her testimony. Cf. Exocet, Inc. v. Cordes, 815 S.W.2d 350, 352 (Tex.App.—Austin 1991, no writ) (upholding trial court's discretion to admit testimony of party not identified in response to an interrogatory seeking witness list).
Pursuant to Rule 170, Tex.R.App.P., without hearing oral argument, a majority of this court grants the application for writ of error, reverses the judgment of the court of appeals, and remands the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
A party who fails to respond to or supplement his response to a request for discovery shall not be entitled to present evidence which the party was under a duty to provide in a response or supplemental response or to offer the testimony of an expert witness or of any other person having knowledge of discoverable matter, unless the trial court finds that good cause sufficent to require admission exists.