Hicks v. W. Funding, Inc., 809 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. App. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Hicks v. W. Funding, Inc., 809 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. App. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Interest of S.B.C.
Tex. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Hicks v. Western Funding, Inc., 809 S.W.2d 787, 788 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Morriss v. Enron Oil & Gas Co.
Tex. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Hicks v. Western Funding, Inc., 809 S.W.2d 787, 788 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Campos v. Investment Management Properties, Inc. (2×)
Tex. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
Hicks v. Western Funding, 809 S.W.2d 787, 788 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied); Carlyle Real Estate Ltd.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Anzilotti v. Gene D. Liggin, Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see"
Tex. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
Hicks v. Western Funding Inc., 809 S.W.2d 787, 788 (TexApp.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bradt v. West
Tex. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
Dyson Descendant, 861 S.W.2d at 952 ; Hicks v. Western Funding, Inc., 809 S.W.2d 787, 788 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied); Shuttlesworth, 800 S.W.2d at 908 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of S.R.M.
Tex. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
Hicks v. Western Funding, Inc., 809 S.W.2d 787, 788 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Boudreaux Civic Ass'n v. Cox (2×)
Tex. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
Hicks v. Western Funding, 809 S.W.2d 787, 788 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Owen v. Hodge
Tex. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
Hicks v. Western Funding, Inc., 809 S.W.2d 787, 788 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) James v. Hudgins (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
Id.; Hicks v. Western Funding, Inc., 809 S.W.2d 787, 788 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied); Daniel v. Esmaili, 761 S.W.2d 827, 830 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1988, no writ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Holberg & Co. v. Citizens National Assurance Co.
Tex. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Hicks v. Western Funding, Inc., 809 S.W.2d 787, 788 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Otis Elevator Co. v. Parmelee
Tex. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
Lane v. Fair Shoes, 150 Tex. 566, 568-69 , 243 S.W.2d 683 , 684 (1951); Hicks v. Western Funding, Inc., 809 S.W.2d 787, 788 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no writ).
cited Cited "see" Sandra G. Hale v. Hospice at the Texas Medical Center
Tex. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hicks v. Western Funding, Inc., 809 S.W.2d 787, 788 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied).
cited Cited "see" Parker v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Tex. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hicks v. Western Funding, Inc., 809 S.W.2d 787, 788 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied).
discussed Cited "see" Favaloro v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline
Tex. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hicks v. Western Funding, Inc., 809 S.W.2d 787, 788 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied) (presuming facts against appellant in appeal from directed verdict with no statement of facts); Norwood v. Bayshore Bus Lines, Inc., 196 S.W.2d 526, 527 (Tex.Civ.App.-Galveston 1946, writ dism’d) (presuming facts against appellant in appeal from JNOV with no statement of facts).
cited Cited "see" Swate v. Crook
Tex. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hicks v. Western Funding, Inc., 809 S.W.2d 787, 788 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied).
cited Cited "see" Allied Resources Corp. v. Mo-Vac Service Co.
Tex. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hicks v. Western Funding, Inc., 809 S.W.2d 787, 788 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied) (listing factors used to indicate appeal filed without sufficient cause and only for delay).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Soard, John v. University of Texas Health Science Center and Mary T. Donovan Smith, as Independent for the Estate of Dr. Michael G. Donovan
Tex. App. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Brown , 58 S.W.3d at 176 (stating same in context of case involving partial reporter = s record and non-compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(c)); see also See Hicks v. Western Funding, Inc. , 809 S.W.2d 787, 788 (Tex. App. C Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied) (presuming facts against appellant in appeal from directed verdict with no statement of facts).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rose M. HICKS, Appellant,
v.
WESTERN FUNDING, INC., Appellee
01-90-00479-CV.
Court of Appeals of Texas.
May 2, 1991.
809 S.W.2d 787
Jerome K. Wade, Houston., William F. Woods, III, Houston.
Duggan, O'Connor, Mirabal.
Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

MIRABAL, Justice.

We withdraw our original opinion issued March 21, 1991, substitute the following in its stead, and overrule appellant’s motion for rehearing.

[*788] This is an appeal from a directed verdict granted in favor of appellee-defendant, Western Funding, Inc., at the close of the case-in-chief of appellant-plaintiff, Rose M. Hicks. We affirm.

The sole point of error is that the trial court erred in granting the directed verdict in favor of appellee.

Appellant did not file a statement of facts in this appeal. Appellant requests this Court to review the “evidence” in the transcript, including a motion for summary judgment, to determine whether the trial court erred in rendering the directed verdict in favor of appellee.

Without a statement of facts, appellant cannot show this Court what evidence was presented during the trial. Rodriguez v. Rubin, 731 S.W.2d 141, 142 (Tex.App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, writ ref d n.r.e.). In the absence of a statement of facts, it must be presumed on appeal that the evidence supports the judgment of the trial court. Lane v. Fair Stores, 150 Tex. 566, 568-69, 243 S.W.2d 683, 684 (1951).

We overrule appellant’s sole point of error.

Appellee has filed a request that this Court assess frivolous appeal damages against appellant, as authorized by Tex.R. App.P. 84. We decline to do so.

Even though this Court has been known to grant sanctions for a frivolous appeal based, in part, on the absence of a statement of facts, the absence merely raises an inference and is not conclusive evidence that the appeal was taken for delay or without sufficient cause. See Rodriguez, 731 S.W.2d at 143; see also A.T. Lowry Toyota, Inc. v. Peters, 727 S.W.2d 307, 309 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ) (Dunn, J., dissenting). In determining whether delay damages are appropriate, this Court must review the record from the advocate’s point of view at the time the appeal was taken in order to determine if reasonable grounds existed to believe that the case should be reversed. Daniel v. Esmaili, 761 S.W.2d 827, 830 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1988, no writ). Four factors which tend to indicate an appeal was filed for delay and without sufficient cause are: (1) the unexplained absence of a statement of facts; (2) the unexplained failure to file a motion for new trial when it is required to successfully assert factual insufficiency on appeal; (3) a poorly written brief raising no arguable points of error; and (4) the appellant’s unexplained failure to appear for oral argument. Id. at 831.

The appeal in this case did not delay enforcement of a judgment for appellee; appellant provided an explanation for the failure to file the statement of facts (albeit an untimely one); appellant’s attorney prosecuted the appeal in good faith as indicated by the fact the brief, although advancing a novel argument, was properly presented and raised an arguable point of error; and appellant’s attorney requested and appeared for oral argument.

We overrule appellee’s request for rule 84 damages.

We affirm the judgment.