Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Amrhein v. La Madeleine, Inc.
Citations: 206 S.W.3d 173; 2006 WL 2960792Docket: 05-04-01329-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; November 29, 2006; Texas; State Appellate Court
Darlene C. Amrhein appeals a no-evidence summary judgment in favor of La Madeleine, Inc., arguing that the trial court lacked authority to enter judgment against her and erred in granting the summary judgment. The case revolves around Amrhein's 1996 lawsuit alleging on-the-job injury due to La Madeleine's failure to ensure a safe workplace. After Amrhein filed for bankruptcy, La Madeleine sought to dismiss the case, but the trial court denied the motion and stayed the lawsuit pending bankruptcy court orders. Subsequently, a motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to a judgment that Amrhein take nothing. Upon appeal, the appellate court reversed this decision, stating that the trial court had erred as the case remained stayed and all subsequent proceedings were null. Despite the appellate court's ruling, the case returned over four years later, with the trial court granting another summary judgment against Amrhein without reinstating the case to the active docket. La Madeleine contended that a January 15, 2002 order vacating the stay reinstated the case; however, the appellate court found this order ineffective for two reasons: it was issued while the case was pending in the Supreme Court and did not fully reinstate the case, as it only lifted the stay for a specific motion. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. La Madeleine contends that the stay was 'waived' due to the actions of the parties and the trial court during the case, but it fails to provide supporting authority for this claim. The court, in its prior opinion, clarified that unless specified otherwise in the abatement order, any actions taken during the abatement period are legally ineffective. The court expresses regret about having to reverse and remand the case again, noting that prolonged proceedings are not in the best interests of the parties or the courts. However, it reaffirms that without a reinstatement order on the trial court's active docket, all actions taken post-abatement are null and void. Since no reinstatement order was issued following Judge Coker's July 31, 1997 abatement, all subsequent proceedings, including the case transfer from county court at law number three, lack legal validity. The court sustains Amrhein's first issue, reverses the trial court's judgment, and remands the case for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.