Bridges v. City of Richardson
| Decision Date | 31 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. A-8682,A-8682 |
| Citation | 163 Tex. 292,354 S.W.2d 366 |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
| Parties | Mildred K. BRIDGES, a Widow, Individually and as Next Friend of Joe Wallace Bridges, III, and Suzanne Bridges, Minors, Petitioners, v. CITY OF RICHARDSON and Ray F. Smith & Son, Respondents. |
Woodgate, Richards & McElhaney, Dallas, for petitioners.
Strasburger, Price, Kelton, Miller & Martin, Dallas, for respondents.
The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals is reported in 349 S.W.2d 644.
We approve the judgment entered by the Court of Civil Appeals, but we are not satisfied that he opinion of the court 'in all respects has correctly declared the law.' Normally that conclusion would call for no other action on our part than the stamping of the application for writ of error, . See Rule 483, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. But some of the general holdings of the Court of Civil Appeals, express and implied, which we regard as erroneous are so far-reaching that we deem it wise to disapprove them specifically lest they be regarded by lawyers, trial judges and judges of the Courts of Civil Appeals as having our tacit approval.
The holdings to which we refer and our views with respect thereto are:
1. That in order to complain successfully on appeal of the erroneous admission of evidence, a party must have filed a proper motion in limine to suppress the evidence or to instruct counsel not to offer it.
The purpose in filing a motion in limine to suppress evidence or to instruct opposing counsel not to offer it is to prevent the asking of prejudicial questions and the making of prejudicial statements in the presence of the jury with respect to matters which have no proper bearing on the issues in the case or on the rights of the parties to the suit. It is the prejudicial effect of the questions asked or statements made in connection with the offer of the evidence, not the prejudicial effect of the evidence itself, which a motion in limine is intended to reach. A proper objection made at the time evidence is offered is sufficient to preserve right of review of error committed in admitting it, and a motion in limine is not a necessary predicate for complaint on appeal that the admission of the evidence was error and that the error was prejudicial.
2. That in order to complain successfully on appeal of the erroneous admission of evidence, a party must have requested that the jury be retired until the judge had heard and ruled upon the admissibility of the evidence.
A request to retire the jury while evidence is being offered cannot be a necessary predicate to the right to complain on appeal of a trial court's error in admitting evidence over proper...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. State, 2-1072A80
... ... (Thelma was separated from her husband. She and her children lived in a house in the inner city.) ... At 8:00 P.M. three members of the Washington Township Fire Department came ... Its purpose has been succinctly expressed in Bridges v. City of Richardson (1962), 163 Tex. 292, 354 S.W.2d 366, 367: ... 'The purpose in filing a ... ...
-
Shenandoah Associates v. J & K Properties, Inc.
... ... denied 382 U.S. 845, 86 S.Ct. 54, 15 L.Ed.2d 85 (1965); City of Houston v. Howe & Wise, 323 S.W.2d 134, 138 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston 1959, writ ref'd n.r.e.). e Richardson v. Green, 677 S.W.2d 497, 501 (Tex.1984); Columbia Engineering International, Ltd. v. Dorman, 602 ... Bridges v. City of Richardson, 349 S.W.2d 644, 649 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1961), writ ref'd n.r.e. per ... ...
-
Kobashigawa v. Silva
...matters which have no proper bearing on the issues in the case or on the rights of the parties to the suit.Bridges v. City of Richardson, 163 Tex. 292, 354 S.W.2d 366, 367 (1962) (emphasis added). As with other evidentiary rulings, “[t]he granting or denying of a motion in limine is within ......
- Nye v. BNSF Ry. Co., Case Number: 113142
-
Table of Cases
...§1.02.4.2 Brazos River Conservation & Reclamation District v. Allen, 171 S.W.2d 847 (Tex. 1943), §5.27 Bridges v. City of Richardson , 354 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex. 1962), §8.10 Brooks v. First Assembly of God Church , 86 S.W.3d 793 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. dismissed), §8.13 Brown & Root, Inc......
-
Pre-Trial Proceedings
...to matters which have no bearing on the issues in the case or the rights of the parties to the suit.” Bridges v. City of Richardson , 354 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex. 1962). Although the violation of an order in limine may result in the imposition of sanctions, including contempt, see e.g ., Tex. ......