You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Robert Writt v. Shell Oil Company and Shell International, E&P, Inc.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-11-00201-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; June 25, 2013; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas at Houston addressed the motion for reconsideration en banc in the appellate case of Robert Writt v. Shell Oil Company and Shell International, E&P, Inc. (Appellate case number 01-11-00201-CV; Trial court case number 0965221, 189th District Court of Harris County). The motion, filed by the appellee on March 29, 2013, was both denied and granted. The order was signed by Acting Judge Terry Jennings, indicating the decision was made individually and on behalf of the court. The panel included Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland, Sharp, Massengale, and Brown, with Justices Bland and Huddle not participating. The order was dated June 25, 2013.

Legal Issues Addressed

Judicial Decision-Making Process

Application: The decision on the motion for reconsideration en banc was made individually by Acting Judge Terry Jennings and on behalf of the court, highlighting the role of individual judges in appellate decisions.

Reasoning: The order was signed by Acting Judge Terry Jennings, indicating the decision was made individually and on behalf of the court.

Judicial Panel Composition

Application: The case was reviewed by a panel of multiple justices, but Justices Bland and Huddle did not participate in the decision, reflecting procedural norms in appellate courts regarding panel participation.

Reasoning: The panel included Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland, Sharp, Massengale, and Brown, with Justices Bland and Huddle not participating.

Motion for Reconsideration En Banc

Application: The Court of Appeals addressed a motion for reconsideration en banc, which was both denied and granted, indicating a partial acceptance and rejection of the appellee's request.

Reasoning: The motion, filed by the appellee on March 29, 2013, was both denied and granted.