# Hines v. Hash

> Texas Supreme Court · January 27, 1993 · 843 S.W.2d 464

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9759575

## Case

- **Full name:** Dutch HINES, Petitioner, v. C.W. HASH, Jr., Respondent
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 27, 1993
- **Citations:** 843 S.W.2d 464; 1992 WL 360699
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Doggett
- **Judges:** Hecht, Doggett, Mauzy, Gammage
- **Cited by:** 222 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9759575

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”
- concluding that the proper remedy is abatement “if a plaintiff files an action for damages under the DTPA without first giving the required notice, and a defendant timely requests an abatement”

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9759575. Public record. Not legal advice.