green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
14.3 score
“the court of appeals should also defer the payment of fees under rule 5 until it determines whether payment is due.”
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Lizzie J. Lovall v. the University of Houston, the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, the Board of Regents, John Antel and Jay Gogue
the court of appeals should also defer the payment of fees under rule 5 until it determines whether payment is due.
discussed
Cited "see"
in Re: Robert Holeman Twist
See Palo Pinto County v. Lee, 988 S.W.2d 739, 739-40 (Tex. 1998) (per curiam) (denying petition for review but disapproving of language that oral motion to strike was not properly presented during a hearing); see also In re N.S. , No. 10-01-319-CV, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 1449 , at *22 & n.5 (Tex. App.-Waco Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (holding Rule 21 permits oral motions if presented during a hearing); Miller v. Miller , No. 05-02-01903-CV, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 8800 (Tex. App.-Dallas Oct. 15, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.) ("[M]otions are neither required to be preceded by three days' noti…
discussed
Cited "see"
Twist v. McAllen National Bank
See Palo Pinto County v. Lee, 988 S.W.2d 739, 739-40 (Tex.1998) (per curiam) (denying petition for review but disapproving of language that oral motion to strike was not properly presented during a hearing); see also In re N.S., No. 10-01-319-CV, 2004 WL 254215 , at *7 & n.5, 2004 Tex.App.
discussed
Cited "see"
City of Waco v. Lopez
(2×)
See Lee v. Palo Pinto County, 966 S.W.2d 83, 86-87 (Tex.App.-Eastland), pet. denied per curiam, 988 S.W.2d 739 (Tex.1998); Jones, 896 S.W.2d at 576-77 ; see also Turner, 885 S.W.2d at 561-62 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services v. Carol Mersch
P. 21a; see also Lee v. Palo Pinto Cnty., 966 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1998) (summary-judgment response is timely served if placed in mail seven days before hearing), pet. denied per curiam, 988 S.W.2d 739 (Tex. 1998); Holmes v. Ottawa Truck, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 866, 869 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1997, pet. denied) (same); see also Davis Family Blanco Rd.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PALO PINTO COUNTY, Texas, Petitioner,
v.
Edward L. LEE, Respondent
v.
Edward L. LEE, Respondent
98-0323.
Texas Supreme Court.
Oct 15, 1998.
Robert T. Bass, Austin, for Petitioner., H. Dustin Fillmore, K. Marvin Adams, Fort Worth, for Respondent.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 6 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Texas (1)
PER CURIAM.
We deny Palo Pinto’s petition for review. However, we note that in discussing Rule 21 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the court of appeals held:
[T]he County presented its oral motion to strike Lee’s response on the day set for the summary judgment hearing when the trial court was hearing “preliminary matters before we get to the motion for summary judgment.” This was not an oral motion “presented during a hearing or trial.”
966 S.W.2d 83, 85. We disapprove of this language to the extent the court concluded that Palo Pinto did not present its oral mo[*740] tion to strike during a hearing. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 21.