Alaniz v. Jones & Neuse, Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 April 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-0767,94-0767 |
| Citation | 907 S.W.2d 450 |
| Parties | 38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 509 Servando ALANIZ, d/b/a Exxon Robstown, Petitioner, v. JONES & NEUSE, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Jerry Guerra and William J. Tinning, Corpus Christi, for petitioner.
Frank E. Weathered and John A. Smith, III, Corpus Christi, for respondent.
Servando Alaniz sued Jones & Neuse, Inc. for damages to his Exxon service station caused by one of its trucks. The trial court rendered judgment on a jury verdict awarding Alaniz his repair costs, past lost profits and mental anguish. Alaniz nevertheless appealed, complaining that the trial court erred in refusing to submit his requested jury question on future lost profits. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Alaniz failed to preserve his complaint. 878 S.W.2d 244.
As trial began, Alaniz submitted to the trial court a complete requested charge which contained on one page a question concerning various elements of damages, including future lost profits. The trial court included that very page in the jury charge, with the references to future lost profits simply redacted. Alaniz objected on the record to the omission, and this was the only objection he made to the charge. The trial court overruled the objection.
The court of appeals acknowledged that Alaniz may have preserved his objection for complaint on appeal under our decision in State Department of Highways v. Payne, 838 S.W.2d 235 (Tex.1992), since it is obvious that the trial court was fully aware of Alaniz' request and refused it. The court of appeals declined to follow Payne, however, holding instead that Alaniz did not meet the requirements of Rule 273, TEX.R.CIV.P., which states:
Either party may present to the court and request written questions, definitions, and instructions to be given to the jury; and the court may give them or a part thereof, or may refuse to give them, as may be proper. Such requests shall be prepared and presented to the court and submitted to opposing counsel for examination and objection within a reasonable time after the charge is given to the parties or their attorneys for examination. A request by either party for any questions, definitions, or instructions shall be made separate and apart from such party's objections to the court's charge.
Specifically, the appeals court faulted Alaniz in three respects: for including his request in a complete charge; for submitting his request before trial and not "after the charge [was] given to the parties"; and for not making his request "separate and apart from [his] objections". 878 S.W.2d at 245.
In each respect the court of appeals erred. First, Alaniz'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Diversicare General Partner, Inc. v. Rubio
-
Wackenhut Corrections Corp. v. De La Rosa
...rejected the argument that a request for an instruction is waived if it is buried in a multitude of requests. See Alaniz v. Jones & Neuse, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 450, 451 (Tex.1995); Samedan Oil Corp. v. Intrastate Gas Gathering, Inc., 78 S.W.3d 425, 453 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2001, pet. granted, judgm'......
-
In re Commitment of Miller
...Civil Procedure "does not prohibit including the request in a complete charge," the request must not be obscured. Alaniz v. Jones & Neuse, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 450, 451 (Tex.1995); see TEX.R. CIV. P. 274. We conclude the definition of "sexually motivated conduct" that Miller requested was obscu......
-
R.R. Comm'n of Tex. v. Gulf Energy Exploration Corp.
...Oncology, P.A. v. Sadler Clinic Ass'n, P.A., 384 S.W.3d 875, 898 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2012, pet. denied) (citing Alaniz v. Jones & Neuse, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 450, 452 (Tex.1995) ); Gibbins v. Berlin, 162 S.W.3d 335, 341 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) ("[A] trial court may refuse a tendered ......
-
Table of Cases
...n.r.e.), §1.02.15 Aiken v. Hancock , 115 S.W.3d 26 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, pet. denied), §2.02.1 Alaniz v. Jones & Neuse, Inc. , 907 S.W.2d 450, 452 (Tex. 1995), §10.01.1 Allen v. Humphreys, 559 S.W.2d 798 (Tex. 1977), §§7.16, 7.23, 7.28 Allied Towing Service v. Mitchell , 833 S.W.2d 5......
-
Trial: Part Two Court's Charge to Judgment
...and the evidence. Tex. R. Civ. P. 278; Union Pacific R.R. v. Williams , 85 S.W.3d 162, 166 (Tex. 2002); Alaniz v. Jones & Neuse, Inc. , 907 S.W.2d 450, 452 (Tex. 1995). If evidence has been introduced that supports a theory of recovery or defense but on which there are no pleadings, then a ......
-
CHAPTER 1 Preserving Issues for Appeal
...838, 842–47 (Tex. 2014); Cruz v. Andrews Restoration, Inc., 364 S.W.3d 817, 829 (Tex. 2013).[98] But see Alaniz v. Jones & Neuse, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 450, 451–52 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam) ("While Payne does not revise the requirements of the rules *452 of procedure regarding the jury charge, it......