Husband motion in Texas

1974Our decision in Graham v. Franco, supra, was concerned with property rights between husband and wife, holding that “recovery for personal injuries to the body of the wife, including disfigurement and physical pain and suffering, past and future, is separate property of the wife,” and that as to such recovery the contributory negligence of the husband does not bar the recovery of the wife.

1973Chief Justice Greenhill’s authoritative opinion in Graham v. Franco, supra, is not challenged by the parties and we readily accept its teaching that “the contributory negligence of the husband does not bar the recovery by the wife” for injuries to her person. ( 488 S.W.2d at 397 ) However, the question presented by this appeal was not before the court in Graham .

2023See Nelson, 193 S.W.3d at 629–30; Walston, 971 S.W.2d at 692–93; Young, 765 S.W.2d at 444 ; Whitehill, 628 S.W.2d at 149–51.

2023See Nelson, 193 S.W.3d at 629–30; Walston, 971 S.W.2d at 692–93; Young, 765 S.W.2d at 444 ; Whitehill, 628 S.W.2d at 149–51.

2023See Nelson, 193 S.W.3d at 629–30; Walston, 971 S.W.2d at 692–93; Young, 765 S.W.2d at 444 ; Whitehill, 628 S.W.2d at 149–51.

2023Because that is what the trial court’s order partially granting Husband’s motion for summary judgment appears to conclude, that represents “a clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly . . . .” Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840 ; see also In re Castle Tex. Prod.

2021MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL Husband’s first issue states, “The trial court erred in granting a default judgment against Appellant and awarding spousal maintenance, reimbursement, medical judgment and a disproportionate share of the community property and Appellant’s separate property to Appellee.” However, Husband’s argument in support of this issue asserts the trial court erred in denying Husband’s motion for new trial because he established the factors required for a new trial set forth in –4– Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 133 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. 1939).

2019We conclude that Husband received an opportunity to be heard “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful way.” Perry, 67 S.W.3d at 92 .

2018Rule 45 “does not require the Court to award just damages in every case in which an appeal is frivolous,” see Woods, 501 S.W.3d at 198 , and we decline to do so here. –12– CONCLUSION We affirm the trial court’s grant of Husband’s plea to the jurisdiction and its award of sanctions against Wyde in its May 24, 2017 Order. /Elizabeth Lang-Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS JUSTICE 170587F.P05 –13– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT WYDE AND ASSOCIATES, LLC, AND On Appeal from the 469th Judicial District DAN L.

2017Lindsey , 965 S.W.2d at 592 n.3.

2016See Shaw, 427 S.W.3d at 544 ; Serrano, 241 S.W.3d at 564 ; Daugherty, 187 S.W.3d at 619 ; Sw.

2016See Shaw, 427 S.W.3d at 544 ; Serrano, 241 S.W.3d at 564 ; Daugherty, 187 S.W.3d at 619 ; Sw.

1999Id.

1984"Her right is asserted in this action and it was unaffected by his death." Id. 102 S.W. at 96 .

1984"Her right is asserted in this action and it was unaffected by his death." Id. 102 S.W. at 96 .

1981See, e. g., Ray v. United States, 385 F.Supp. 372 (D.C., S.D.Tex.1974); Brick & Tile, Inc. v. Parker, 143 Tex. 383 , 186 S.W.2d 66 (1945); McKivett v. McKivett, 123 Tex. 298 , 70 S.W.2d 694 (1934).

1981See, e. g., Ray v. United States, 385 F.Supp. 372 (D.C., S.D.Tex.1974); Brick & Tile, Inc. v. Parker, 143 Tex. 383 , 186 S.W.2d 66 (1945); McKivett v. McKivett, 123 Tex. 298 , 70 S.W.2d 694 (1934).

1981See, e. g., Ray v. United States, 385 F.Supp. 372 (D.C., S.D.Tex.1974); Brick & Tile, Inc. v. Parker, 143 Tex. 383 , 186 S.W.2d 66 (1945); McKivett v. McKivett, 123 Tex. 298 , 70 S.W.2d 694 (1934).

1981See, e. g., Ray v. United States, 385 F.Supp. 372 (D.C., S.D.Tex.1974); Brick & Tile, Inc. v. Parker, 143 Tex. 383 , 186 S.W.2d 66 (1945); McKivett v. McKivett, 123 Tex. 298 , 70 S.W.2d 694 (1934).