holding failure to perform mandatory mandatory, creating a duty or obligation. See TEX. GOV'T but nonjurisdictional act while suit is abated for that purpose © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8 Helena Chemical Co. v. Wilkins, 47 S.W.3d 486 (2001) 44 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 675 results in dismissal
How later courts described this case
- holding failure to perform mandatory mandatory, creating a duty or obligation. See TEX. GOV'T but nonjurisdictional act while suit is abated for that purpose © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8 Helena Chemical Co. v. Wilkins, 47 S.W.3d 486 (2001) 44 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 675 results in dismissal
- holding statute's purpose could be assumption. Instead, the Act provides that a complaint must furthered without jurisdictional interpretation of mandatory be filed in time to “permit effective inspection of the plants timing requirement
- explaining that when plaintiff fails to comply with notice requirement under DTPA or Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act, abatement of the action for the statutory notice period is appropriate, not dismissal
- concluding "that if a plaintiff files an action for damages under the DTPA without first giving the required notice, and a defendant timely requests an abatement, the trial court must abate the proceedings”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston D/B/A John Sealy Hospital ("UTMB") v. Kevin Barrett, M.D., 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 6700 (2003)
Our dissenting colleagues are incorrect that Hines is distinguishable because the DTPA has the word “abatement” in the statute — the word was added in 1995 to conform the statute to the Hines holding from three years earlier.
Distinguished by UNIV. OF TX MED. BR. AT GALVES. v. Barrett, 112 S.W.3d 815 (2003)
Our dissenting colleagues are incorrect that Hines is distinguishable because the DTPA has the word "abatement" in the statutethe word was added in 1995 to conform the statute to the Hines holding from three years earlier.
The opinion
PER CURIAM
concurring.
For the reasons expressed in our per curiam concurring opinions in Delaney v. University of Houston, 835 S.W.2d 56, 64 (Tex.1992), and Greathouse v. Charter National Bank-Southwest, 35 Tex.S.Ct.J. 1017, 1021, 1992 WL 379408 (July 1, 1992, motion for rehearing pending), we disagree with the conclusions of the concurring justices regarding the timeliness of our disposition of this matter.