Opinion · Texas Supreme Court
Gulf Coast Investment Corp. v. NASA 1 Business Center
31 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 583
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Texas Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Date
- 1988-07-06
- Topic
- bankruptcy
How later courts describe this case
- noting that a “hearing” does not necessarily require either a personal appearance before the court or an oral presentation to the court
- explaining that not every hearing called for under every rule of civil procedure necessarily requires an oral hearing, unless required by the express language or the context of the particular rule
- providing that unless required by the express language or context of particular rule of civil procedure, the term “hearing” does not necessarily contemplate either a personal appearance before the court or an oral presentation to the court
- stating that unless required by the express language or context of particular rule of civil procedure, the term “hearing” does not necessarily contemplate either a personal appearance before the court or an oral presentation to the court
- stating that unless required by the express language or context of particular rule of civil procedure, the term A hearing @ does not necessarily contemplate either a personal appearance before the court or an oral presentation to the court
- affirming court of appeals’ holding that trial court abused its discretion in failing to hold hearing on motion to reinstate
- stating hearing on motion to reinstate required where appellant had properly requested hearing
- “It is clear that an oral hearing is required on any timely filed motion to reinstate under Tex.R. Civ. P. 165a.”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Gulf Coast Investment Corp. v. NASA 1 Business Center. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 104 opinions
OPINION ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRIT OF ERROR
PER CURIAM.The applications for writ of error are denied.
The court of appeals correctly held that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to hold an oral hearing on respondent’s motion to reinstate 747 S.W.2d 36. It is clear that an oral hearing is required on any timely filed motion to reinstate under TEX.R.CIV.P. 165a. The rule requires that the judge “shall set a hearing on the motion as soon as practicable,” and that the court “shall notify all parties or their attorneys of record of the date, time and place of the hearing” (emphasis added).
Not every hearing called for under every rule of civil procedure, however, necessarily requires an oral hearing. Rule 7, Rules of Judicial Administration, provides, in part, as follows:
A district or statutory county court judge shall:
[[Image here]]
(4) utilize to the extent consistent with safeguarding the rights of litigants to the just processing of their causes, methods to expedite the disposition of cases on the docket of the court, including
[[Image here]]
(b) the use of telephone or mail in lieu of personal appearance by attorneys for motion hearings_
(Emphasis added.) Unless required by the express language or the context of the particular rule, therefore, the term “hearing” does not necessarily contemplate either a personal appearance before the court or an oral presentation to the court.