Narrative Opinion Summary
In Evans v. Texas Commerce Bank-Austin, N.A., the Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas reviewed a motion for rehearing following its prior decision to reverse a directed verdict issued by the district court. The controversy centered on the Bank's assertion that the Evans' claims were time-barred, which the district court had resolved by issuing a take-nothing judgment on the merits, rather than dismissing the claims based on limitations. The appellate court found that the Bank failed to preserve its argument regarding the statute of limitations because it did not raise a cross-point contesting the final judgment. As a result, the appellate court overruled all points of error presented by the Bank in its rehearing motion and denied the motion. The decision was rendered by Chief Justice Carroll and Justices Aboussie and B.A. Smith, and filed in October 1992.
Legal Issues Addressed
Directed Verdict and Take-Nothing Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court clarified that the district court's directed verdict was issued on the merits, not based on limitations, which influenced the appellate court's decision to reverse the directed verdict.
Reasoning: The appellate court determined that the directed verdict was not based on limitations, as the district court had issued a take-nothing judgment on the merits rather than dismissing the claims.
Motion for Rehearingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Bank's motion for rehearing was denied since all points of error raised were overruled by the appellate court.
Reasoning: Consequently, all points of error raised by the Bank in the rehearing motion were overruled, and the motion for rehearing was denied.
Preservation of Error on Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court determined that the Bank did not preserve its argument regarding limitations because it failed to raise a cross-point attacking the final judgment.
Reasoning: The Bank failed to preserve its argument regarding limitations through a cross-point attacking the final judgment, leading the appellate court to decline consideration of this issue on appeal.