No. 13-0450
Click for Official Page
The Court requested full merits briefing on November 22, 2013. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on June 20, 2014. File Closed
Tracking 1 article about this case.
June 20, 2014
from SCOTXblog
This article also mentions 10 other cases.
| Appellate District: | 13th Court of Appeals |
| Outcome Below: | Aff/Pt and Rev & Ren/Pt |
| COA Docket No.: | 13-12-00169-CV |
| Opinion Author: | Honorable Rogelio Valdez |
| Trial Court: | County Court at Law No 7 |
| County: | Hidalgo |
| Trial Judge: | Honorable Arnoldo Cantu |
| Trial Docket: | CL-05,2909-G |
| Date | Event | Outcome | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2014-08-07 | Case Stored | ||
| 2014-08-01 | Mandate issued | ||
| 2014-06-20 | Petition for Review granted under TRAP 59.1 | ||
| 2014-06-20 | Petition for Review disposed | Petition granted pursuant to TRAP 59.1 | |
| 2014-06-20 | Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record | Issued | |
| 2014-06-20 | Opinion issued | Court of Appeals' judgment reversed & judgment rendered | |
| This case was pending on merits briefs between January 23, 2014 and June 20, 2014. | |||
| 2014-01-23 | Reply Brief (Petitioner) | ||
| 2014-01-13 | Brief on the Merits (Respondent) | ||
| 2013-12-17 | Case Record Filed | ||
| 2013-12-13 | Brief on the Merits (Petitioner) | ||
| 2013-11-25 | Record Requested in Petition for Review | ||
| 2013-11-22 | Brief on the Merits Requested | ||
| 2013-11-06 | Address Change | ||
| 2013-10-18 | Reply to Response (Petitioner) | ||
| 2013-10-07 | Response to Petition (Respondent) | ||
| 2013-09-25 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. | Filing granted | |
| 2013-09-24 | Response to Motion filed | ||
| 2013-09-23 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Response | ||
| 2013-09-23 | Phone call from Clerk's Office | ||
| 2013-08-23 | Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response | ||
| 2013-07-23 | Case forwarded to Court | ||
| 2013-07-17 | Response Waiver filed | ||
| 2013-06-18 | Petition for Review (Petitioner) |
| Party | Counsel | Role | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pena, Jesus |
|
Respondent | ||
| Graham Central Station, Inc. |
|
Petitioner |
A fight took place outside a nightclub. An injured person sued Graham Central Station, Inc., which responded (in part) that a different legal entity (an LLC doing business under this name at this location) was the right defendant as the entity that ran this location. The plaintiff did not amend.
The court of appeals held that there was sufficient evidence on this trial record to conclude that the "Inc." was the proper defendant. The Texas Supreme Court disagreed.
What's interesting about the opinion is how the Court dealt with evidence very near the line that separates "no" from "some" evidence, including two pieces of ambiguous trial testimony. The Court ultimately invoked the "equal inference rule, under which a factfinder 'may not reasonably infer an ultimate fact from meager circumstantial evidence which could give rise to any number of inferences, none more probable than another.'" (citing Hancock v. Variyam,
400 S.W.3d 59, 70-71 (Tex. 2013)).
