"[A]lthough the overruling of a motion in limine may be error, it is never reversible error."
How later courts described this case
- "[A]lthough the overruling of a motion in limine may be error, it is never reversible error."
- “In neither case — (1) questions not asked or evidence not offered, or (2) questions asked or evidence offered — should the error of the trial court in overruling the motion in limine be regarded as harmful or reversible error.”
- error to admit evidence of prior settlements and recoveries
- "In neither case ‑ (1) questions not asked or evidence not offered, or (2) questions asked or evidence offered B should the error of the trial court in overruling the motion in limine be regarded as harmful or reversible error."
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Abrogated on other grounds by Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd. v. McShane, 50 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 866 (2007)
369 S.W.2d 331, 335 (Tex. 1963), abrogated on other grounds by Bay Area Healthcare Grp., Ltd. v. McShane, 239 S.W.3d 231
Superseded by statute, as recognized in Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd. v. McShane
369 S.W.2d 331, 338 (Tex.1963), superseded by rule on other grounds as recognized in Bay Area Healthcare Grp., Ltd. v. McShane, 239 S.W.3d 231, 235
Distinguished
Distinguished by Hall v. Oakley, 409 So. 2d 93 (1982)
Swan and McCardell, however, are distinguishable on several grounds.
The opinion
GRIFFIN, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree with the holding that the trial court should have sustained plaintiff’s special exception, but that it was harmless error under the facts of this record.
I disagree with Judge HAMILTON’S holding that certain documentary evidence was inadmissible.