Opinion

Postive Feed, Inc. v. Guthmann

  • 4 S.W.3d 879
  • 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 7665
  • 1999 WL 826205
Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Filed
Oct 14, 1999
Status
Published
Author
Hedges
On the bench
Tim Taft
Cited by
38 cases
Authority
More cited than 10.1%

holding that order granting appealable order. Mafrige, 866 S.W.2d at 592 . We have defendant's summary judgment "in all things" purported twice revisited Mafrige to clarify its scope. See Inglish v. to be final

How later courts described this case

  • holding that order granting appealable order. Mafrige, 866 S.W.2d at 592 . We have defendant's summary judgment "in all things" purported twice revisited Mafrige to clarify its scope. See Inglish v. to be final
  • holding that order granting defendant's summary specific reference to one or more parties. 3 In this situation, judgment “in all things” purported to be final
  • holding that order granting defendant's summary language operates to render a summary judgment final against judgment “in all things” purported to be final
  • holding that order granting defendant's summary judgment "in all things" purported to be final

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

ADELE HEDGES, Justice,

concurring and dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s disposition of Postive’s tort claim. It is clear that Guthmann did not specifically address Postive’s tort theory “akin to malicious prosecution” in his motion for summary judgment. Therefore, it was error for the trial court to rule on the claim on summary judgment. McConnell v. Southside, 858 S.W.2d 387 , 341 (Tex.1993). What Guthmann should have done was to have filed special exceptions urging that Postive did not state a claim on which relief could be granted. Summary judgment is not a substitute for special exceptions. See In the Interest of B.I.V., 870 S.W.2d 12, 13-14 (Tex.1994).

While it may be true that, as the majority opines, “we think the legislative intent is clear, from the plain language of section 207.007 of the Labor Code, that Postive should not be allowed to circumvent the statute under some new tort theory ‘akin to malicious prosecution,’ ” neither the trial court nor we have the question before us in a proper procedural posture. Therefore, I would sustain Postive’s first and second points of error and reverse and remand the entire case.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.