Cowan v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 722 S.W.2d 140 (Tex. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
Cowan v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 722 S.W.2d 140 (Tex. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
49 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Crumpton v. State, 301 S.W.3d 663 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 142 cited at this page2 citing cases
  • Crumpton v. State, 301 S.W.3d 663 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).published 2 cites
    App.1998) ("When older precedent conflicts with a newer decision that is found to be more soundly reasoned, we may resolve the inconsistency in favor of the more soundly reasoned decision."). [1] 257 S.W.3d 712 (Tex.Crim.App.2008). [2] 769…
  • Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).published
    Brooks, 722 S.W.2d at 142.
At page 140 “afford courts of appeals the discretion to deny a party the right to file a motion for rehearing.”1 citing case1 citing court quotes it
At page 141 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Crumpton, Lindsey Alyn, No. PD-1634-07 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 9, 2009).published
    This may mean that the verdict and the answer to the special issue are inconsistent, but that inconsistency is allowed because the statute 4 Beck, 769 S.W.2d at 527-28 (bracketed material in original). 5 722 S.W.2d 140, 141 (Tex. Crim.
Other citing cases4 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert C. COWAN, Sr. & Jerry W. McCraw, Relators,
v.
the FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent
C-6037.
Texas Supreme Court.
Jan 7, 1987.
Published opinion
722 S.W.2d 140
1987 Tex. LEXIS 276
William B. Chenault, San Antonio, for relators., Sam Millsap, Jr., Crim. Dist. Atty. and Barry P. Hitchings, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., Bexar County, San Antonio, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This mandamus proceeding arises from the refusal of the Fourth Court of Appeals to allow a motion for rehearing. Robert Cowan and Jerry McCraw filed suit to challenge an order of the Bexar County Commissioners Court abolishing three justice of the peace positions. The order of the Commissioners Court was upheld by the trial court. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment and concluded its opinion by citing Tex.R.App.P. 190 and stating “the right to file a motion for rehearing is denied.” 717 S.W.2d 738. Cow-an and McCraw filed an application for writ of error with this court. However, because there was no motion for rehearing in the court of appeals, the application for writ of error was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We now hold in this mandamus proceeding that the court of appeals abused its discretion in denying the right to file a motion for rehearing, and we conditionally grant the writ of mandamus.

Tex.R.App.P. 190 concerns motions for rehearing in this court, not the courts of appeals. The rule relating to motions for rehearing in the courts of appeals is Tex.R. App.P. 100 which does not afford courts of appeals the discretion to deny a party the right to file a motion for rehearing.

Without hearing oral argument, we conditionally grant the writ of mandamus pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 122. Should the court of appeals refuse to set aside its order denying the right of relators to file a motion for rehearing, a writ of mandamus will issue. See Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843 (Tex.1979).