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
DOGGETT, Justice,
concurring.
Unfortunately today’s decision — limited to a single legal question, based on facts stipulated by the parties, and unanimous in result — is not timely, issued more than thirteen months after oral argument was heard in 1991. Every case deserves our prompt and careful attention whether the party seeking review in this court is a homeowner like Dutch Hines, a rape victim like Andrea Delaney, 1 or a business, large or small. 2
For the reasons I have previously expressed, I concur in the judgment but not the manner in which it has been disposed. See Delaney v. University of Houston, 835 S.W.2d 56, 61 (Tex.1992) (Doggett, J., concurring); Greathouse v. Charter National Bank Southwest, 35 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 1017, 1020 (July 1, 1992, motion for rehearing pending) (Doggett, J., concurring); Schick v. Wm. H. McGee & Co., 843 S.W.2d 473 (Tex.1992) (Doggett, J., concurring opinion on order granting motion to dismiss). That some of my colleagues consider “our disposition of this matter” to have been timely accomplished, 843 S.W.2d at 473 (per cu-riam concurring opinion), only indicates that Texans can expect more delays from a justice system that is not functioning in a proper manner.
MAUZY, J., joins in this concurring opinion.
. Delaney v. University of Houston, 835 S.W.2d 56, 61 (Tex.1992) (Doggett, J., concurring).
. Greathouse v. Charter National Bank Southwest, 35 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 1017, 1020 (July 1, 1992, motion for rehearing pending) (Doggett, J., concurring); Schick v. Wm. H. McGee & Co., 843 S.W.2d 473 (Tex.1992) (Doggett, J., concurring opinion on order granting motion to dismiss).