Opinion · Texas Supreme Court

Inpetco, Inc. v. Texas American Bank/Houston N.A.

729 S.W.2d 300

Type
Opinion
Court
Texas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Texas
Date
1987-04-01
Topic
litigation

How later courts describe this case

  • disapproving court of appeals opinion finding waiver by failure to comply with briefing rules "without first ordering Inpetco to rebrief"
  • denying review but stating the court of appeals erred in affirming the trial court on the basis of briefing inadequacies without first ordering appellant to rebrief
  • failure to follow Tex.R.App.P. 74 cannot be grounds for waiving all points of error unless appellant has been given opportunity to correct the defects, citing Tex.R.App.P. 83
  • appellate court erred in affirming based on briefing inadequacies without first ordering rebriefing but affirmance was correct on the merits
  • reading rule 38’s predecessor in conjunction with rule 44’s predecessor
  • regarding parallel provisions of former appellate rules

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Inpetco, Inc. v. Texas American Bank/Houston N.A.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
94 opinions
INPETCO v. TEXAS AMERICAN BANK/HOUSTON N.A.,729 S.W.2d 300(Tex. 1987)
729 S.W.2d 300
INPETCO, INC., H. Brennan (Inc.) and Henry Brennan, Petitioners, v.
TEXAS AMERICAN BANK/HOUSTON N.A., Respondent.
No. C-6186.
Supreme Court of Texas.
April 1, 1987.
Appeal from 215th District Court, Harris County, Eugene Chambers, J.
William B. Portis, Jr., Houston, for petitioners.

Lawrence L. Bellatti and Lori M. Gallagher, Andrews Kurth, Houston, for respondent.
OPINION ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ERROR
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment. Texas American Bank sued Inpetco, Inc., H. Brennan, Inc. and Henry Brennan1on a promissory note. In defense, Inpetco alleged that the note sued upon was executed in violation of a prior controlling agreement which was the governing instrument for all of Inpetco's borrowings from the bank. The bank moved for summary judgment asserting alternatively that the prior agreement did not apply to the note in question and, in the event that the agreement applied, that the bank complied with its terms. The trial court rendered summary judgment for the bank which the court of appeals affirmed.722 S.W.2d 721(Tex.App. 1986).

In refusing the application for writ of error, no reversible error, a majority of the court disapproves that portion of the court of appeals opinion which states Inpetco waived its point of error by failing to comply with the briefing requirements of Tex.R.App.P. 74.2Rule 74 should be read in conjunction with Tex.R.App.P. 833which provides, "A judgment shall not be affirmed or reversed or an appeal dismissed for defects or irregularities in appellate procedure, either of form or substance, without allowing a reasonable time to correct or amend such defects or irregularities. . . . " The court of appeals erred in affirming the trial court on the basis of Inpetco's briefing inadequacies without first ordering Inpetco to rebrief.

Reviewing the summary judgment evidence in the light most favorable to Inpetco, a majority of the court has determined that no genuine issue of material fact exists which would preclude summary judgment; consequently, the court of appeals was correct in affirming the trial court judgment. The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.Page 301

[EDITORS' NOTE: PAGE 301 CONTAINED DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION.]Page 302
  1. The petitioners herein are collectively referred to as Inpetco. ↩
  2. Formerly Tex.R.Civ.P. 414. ↩
  3. Formerly Tex.R.Civ.P. 437. ↩