At page 566 Reversing judgment without properly assigned error55 citing cases“the correct measure of damages for wrongful discharge of an employee is the present cash value of the contract if it had not been breached, less any amounts that the employee should . . . be able to earn through other employment.”
- Crosswater Yacht Club, L.P. Crosswater Yacht Club Mgmt., L.L.C. Crosswater Corp. Harbor Ventures, Inc. Rand Forest & Richard Kemp v. Charles H. West & Rhonda West, No. 03-08-00018-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 16, 2008).published(The correct measure of damages for wrongful discharge of an employee is the present cash value of the contract if it had not been breached, less any amounts that the employee should . . . be able to earn through other…)
- City of Temple v. Taylor, 268 S.W.3d 852 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008).published (The correct measure of damages for wrongful discharge of an employee is the present cash value of the contract if it had not been breached, less any amounts that the employee should . . . be able to earn through other…)
- Joshua Caleb Lowry v. State, No. 03-08-00147-CR (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 27, 2008).published(The correct measure of damages for wrongful discharge of an employee is the present cash value of the contract if it had not been breached, less any amounts that the employee should . . . be able to earn through other…)
- Billy Gene Hinson, Jr. v. Paula J. Thompson, No. 09-04-00534-CV (Tex. App.—Beaumont July 28, 2005).published(The court of appeals is not authorized to reverse a trial court's judgment in the absence of a properly assigned error.)
- Sharon Appleton v. Consol. Crane & Rigging, LLC, No. 09-21-00247-CV (Tex. App.—Beaumont Dec. 22, 2022).publishedShe further complained that CCR failed to produce Turner or a corporate representative for deposition and only Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex. 1983)) (explaining that the court of appeals would not disturb the trial court’s rulin…
- Sarah Garnelo v. Urban Sw. Twp. Apts. GP, LLC D/B/A Twp. Apts., No. 14-20-00796-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 26, 2022).publishedInt’l, Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex. 1983)).
- Ramachandran v. Jain, No. 3:18-cv-00811 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2022).Int’l, Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex. 1983) (per curiam). 8 Id. 9 Doc.
- Nicholas Marteny v. Brent W. Coon & Brent W. Coon, PC D/B/A Brent Coon & Assocs., No. 09-19-00019-CV, 2020 WL 5666567 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Sept. 24, 2020).publishedInt’l, Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex. 1983)) (explaining that where the trial court erroneously dismissed all causes of action, although the motion for summary judgment did not address them all but appellant failed to assign err…
- Luis De Jesus Lara Munoz & Unimex Logistics, L.L.C. v. Ray Castillo, No. 13-18-00451-CV (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Apr. 9, 2020).published(op. on reh’g)
- Off. of the Attorney Gen. of Texas v. Laura G. Rodriguez, 535 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2017).published Intern., Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex. 1983); see also Am.
Show 41 more citing cases
- Jefferson Cnty., Texas v. Ha Penny Nguyen, No. 09-13-00505-CV, 2015 WL 4597560 (Tex. App.—Beaumont July 31, 2015).publishedInt’l, Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex. 1983)).
- Chris Wilmot v. Harry A. Bouknight, Junior, 466 S.W.3d 219 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015).published Gulf Consolidated Int'l, Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex.1983); Professional Serv.
- Kimberley Soukup v. Sedgwick Claims Mangement Servs., Inc. Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC D/B/A BSRO Bridgestone Americas, Inc. Firestone Polymers, LLC & Stephen T. Smith, No. 01-11-00871-CV, 2012 WL 3134223 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 2, 2012).publishedInt’l, Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex. 1983) (per curiam) (stating that aggrieved employee must use reasonable efforts to mitigate or reduce her loss or damage by seeking other employment). 3 Soukup also cites to testimony from h…
- John F. Helm v. Artie G. Kingston, No. 13-10-00224-CV, 2011 WL 6746064 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Dec. 21, 2011).published (op. on reh‘g)
- Thomas Benham v. Robert Lynch, No. 04-09-00606-CV, 2011 WL 381665 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 2, 2011).published Int’l, Inc. v. Murphy , 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex. 1983).
- In Re Rose, 144 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. 2004).publishedInt’l, Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex.1983)); see Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Renaissance Women’s Group, P.A., 121 S.W.3d 742, 748 (Tex.2003).
- Emmanuel Lilly, Individually & D/B/A Lilly's Bonding Serv., & D/B/A J & M Pawn Shop v. Rodney Tolar, No. 06-01-00163-CV, 2002 WL 1926527 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Aug. 22, 2002).unpublishedInt'l, Inc. v. Murphy , 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex. 1983); Gorges Foodservice, Inc. v. Huerta , 964 S.W.2d 656, 669 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1997, no pet.).
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Amos, 79 S.W.3d 178 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002).published Int'l, Inc. v. Murphy , 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex. 1983); Huerta , 964 S.W.2d at 669 .
- Sanchez, Sr., Samuel, & Wife Sheila Sanchez, Both Individually & in Behalf of the Est. of Their Son, Samuel Sanches, Jr. v. Rodriguez, Raul, A/K/A Raul "Rudy" Rodriguez, Individually & D/B/A Law Offices of Raul Rodriguez, No. 13-00-00060-CV (Oct. 4, 2001).publishedInt'l, Inc. v. Murphy , 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex. 1983)).
- Bay Area Healthcare Grp., Ltd., D/B/A Columbia Bayview Psychiatric Ctr. v. Rayburn, William H., No. 13-99-00275-CV (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Dec. 28, 2000).unpublished(opinion on rehearing)
- Palagi v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 69 F. Supp. 2d 903 (S.D. Tex. 1999).publishedInt'l, Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex.1983); Gorges Foodservice, Inc. v. Huerta, 964 S.W.2d 656, 669 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1997, no pet.); America West Airlines, Inc. v. Tope, 935 S.W.2d 908, 915 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1996, no wri…
- In Re Barr, 13 S.W.3d 525 (Tex. 1999).published Int'l, Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex.1983).
- Gorges Foodservice, Inc. v. Huerta, 964 S.W.2d 656 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998).published(opin. on rehearing)
- San Juan 1990-A, L.P. v. Meridian Oil Inc., 951 S.W.2d 159 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997).publishedInt’l, Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex.1983). 5 .
- Osterberg v. Peca, 952 S.W.2d 121 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997).publishedFranclen, Inc., 710 S.W.2d 568, 569 (Tex.1986); Gulf Consolidated International, Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex.1983).
- Am. West Airlines, Inc. v. Tope, 935 S.W.2d 908 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1996).published(opin. on rehearing)
- S & L Restaurant Corp. v. Leal, 883 S.W.2d 221 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1994).published Franclen, Inc., 710 S.W.2d 568, 569 (Tex.1986); Gulf Consolidated Int'l, Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex.1983).
- Sw. Airlines Co. v. Jaeger, 867 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994).published Int'l Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex.1983); Lee-Wright, Inc., 840 S.W.2d at 581.
- Uribe v. Houston Gen. Ins. Co., 849 S.W.2d 447 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1993).published Int'l, Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex. 1983).
- Ralston Purina Co. v. McKendrick, 850 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1993).publishedInt’l, Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex.1983).
- Lee-Wright, Inc. v. Hall, 840 S.W.2d 572 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992).publishedGulf Consolidated Int’l, Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex.1983); Professional Serv.
- Granite Constr. Co. v. Mendoza, 816 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991).published Gulf Consolidated Int'l, Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex.1983); Mullinax, Wells, Baab & Cloutman v. Sage, 692 S.W.2d 533, 536 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (on reh’g).
- Garcia v. Am. Physicians Ins. Exch., 812 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1991).published Inti, Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex. 1983).
- Doe v. Doe, 796 S.W.2d 506 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990).publishedGulf Consolidated Int'l, Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex.1983); Department of Human Resources v. Wininger, 657 S.W.2d 783, 784 (Tex.1983); Samples Exterminators v. Samples, 640 S.W.2d 873, 875 (Tex.1982); Mullinax, Wells, Baab & C…
- City of Laredo v. Rodriguez, 791 S.W.2d 567 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1990).publishedInt’l, Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex.1983); Professional Services, Inc. v. Amaitis, 592 S.W.2d 396, 397 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
- Winograd v. Willis, 789 S.W.2d 307 (Tex. App. 1990).publishedInt’l, Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex.1983); W.
- Yiamouyiannis v. Thompson, 764 S.W.2d 338 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1988).publishedInt’l, Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex.1983).
- Krafve v. O'Keeffe, 753 S.W.2d 220 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1988).published(reversal on basis of portion of case not appealed unauthorized)
- Dorchester Gas Producing Co. v. Hagy, 748 S.W.2d 474 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1988).publishedInt’l Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex.1983).
- Lenhard v. Butler, 745 S.W.2d 101 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1988).publishedPrudential Insurance Co. v. Franclen, Inc., 710 S.W.2d 568, 569 (Tex.1986); Gulf Consolidated Intern., Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex.1983).
- Texas Emp. Comm'n v. Hodges, 734 S.W.2d 427 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987).publishedGulf Consolidated Int'l, Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex.1983); Dept. of Human Resources v. Wininger, 657 S.W.2d 783, 784 (Tex.1983); Samples Exterminators v. Samples, 640 S.W.2d 873, 875 (Tex.1982); Mullinax, Wells, Baab & Cloutm…
- Texas Nat'l Bank v. Karnes, 717 S.W.2d 901 (Tex. 1986).publishedInt’l Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex.1983).
- McCraw v. Vickers, 717 S.W.2d 738 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1986).publishedFranclen, Inc., 710 S.W.2d 568, 569 (Tex.1986); Gulf Consolidated International, Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex.1983); American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. Parker, 144 Tex. 453 , 191 S.W.2d 844, 848 (1946); Safety Casualty…
- Hunt Cnty. Tax Appraisal Dist. v. Rubbermaid Inc., 719 S.W.2d 215 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986).published Gulf Consolidated International, Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex.1983).
- Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. J.R. Franclen, Inc., 710 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. 1986).publishedGulf Consolidated International, Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex.1983).
- State Bd. of Ins. v. Westland Film Indus., 705 S.W.2d 695 (Tex. 1986).published
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Black, 708 S.W.2d 925 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1986).published
- Texas Animal Health Comm'n v. Garza, 27 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000).published
- Westland Film Indus. v. State Bd. of Ins., 709 S.W.2d 762 (Tex. App.—Austin 1986).published
- Aguilar v. Maverick Eng'g Co., 752 S.W.2d 727 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1988).published
- Amanda Bradshaw v. Barney Samuel Bradshaw, 555 S.W.3d 539 (Tex. 2018).published
At page 565 ON MOTION FOR REHEARING PER CURIAM. We grant the respondent’s motion for rehearing. Our former opinion and judgment of July 13, 1983, are withdrawn and the…1 citing case
- Hertz Equip. Rental Corp. v. Kyle Barousse, 365 S.W.3d 46 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011).publishedInt’l, Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565, 565-66 (Tex.1983); Gorges *59 Foodserv., Inc. v. Huerta, 964 S.W.2d 656, 669 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1997, no pet.); Am.
v.
John MURPHY, Respondent
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.We grant the respondent’s motion for rehearing. Our former opinion and judgment of July 13, 1983, are withdrawn and the following opinion is substituted.
This is a suit for breach of an employment contract brought by John Murphy against Gulf Consolidated International, Inc. The trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment for Murphy and granted Gulf a summary judgment for $5,000. The court of appeals reversed and remanded. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause to that court.
Murphy’s employment with Gulf was terminated with six months remaining of his two-year contract. Gulf asserted an affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages, alleging that Murphy had an opportunity to return to work for his previous[*566] employer, Mid-Continent Supply Company, after being discharged from Gulf. The trial court found that Gulf had breached the employment contract and owed Murphy $16,389.39 in back salary. It also found that Murphy could have returned to work for Mid-Continent and earned $18,500 during that time period. The court offset the $18,500 against the damages owed by Gulf, holding that Murphy should have mitigated his damages, which resulted in a zero recovery for Murphy. Additionally the trial court granted Gulf a summary judgment for $5,000 based on a note due from Murphy. Murphy did not appeal from the summary judgment on the note.
The court of appeals, in an unpublished opinion pursuant to Rule 452 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, reversed and remanded for a new trial. It held that since Murphy did not have an actual job offer from his previous employer, Gulf did not meet its burden of proof on the affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages. In reversing the entire case, the court of appeals thus reversed the summary judgment for Gulf on the $5,000 note, even though it was not assigned as error on appeal.
The general rule as to mitigation of damages in breach of employment suits is that the discharged employee must use reasonable diligence to mitigate damages by seeking other employment. Professional Services, Inc. v. Amaitis, 592 S.W.2d 396 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1979, writ ref’d n.r. e.). The correct measure of damages for wrongful discharge of an employee is the present cash value of the contract if it had not been breached, less any amounts that the employee should in the exercise of reasonable diligence be able to earn through other employment. Greater Fort Worth & Tarrant County Action Agency v. Mims, 627 S.W.2d 149 (Tex.1982). Gulf was not required to prove that Murphy obtained an actual job offer in order to sustain its burden of proof on mitigation.
Furthermore, the court of appeals erred in reversing and remanding the case in its entirety. The summary judgment granted Gulf was not appealed from by Murphy. The court of appeals is not authorized to reverse a trial court’s judgment in the absence of a properly assigned error. Texas Power and Light Co. v. Cole, 313 S.W.2d 524, 529 (Tex.1958).
The holding of the court of appeals is in conflict with Greater Fort Worth and Tarrant County Action Agency v. Mims, supra, and Texas Power and Light Co. v. Cole, supra. We therefore reverse the judgment of the court of appeals without hearing oral argument and remand the question of mitigation of damages to that court for consideration of the evidence consistent with this opinion. Tex.R.Civ.P. 483.