Fruehauf Corp. v. Carrillo
| Decision Date | 24 February 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. D-3156,D-3156 |
| Citation | 848 S.W.2d 83 |
| Parties | FRUEHAUF CORPORATION, et al., Petitioners, v. Maria and Hilario CARRILLO, Individually, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
John L. Lancaster III, David C. Myers, Dallas, Knox D. Nunnally, Marie R. Yeates, Penelope E. Nicholson, Catherine (Smith) Bukowski, Houston, Baldemar Gutierrez, Alice, Jesus Maria Alvarez, Rio Grande City, Robert M. Schick, Houston, Arnulfo Guerra, Roma, for petitioners.
Frank R. Nye, Jr., Rio Grande City, Rudolfo Nava, San Antonio, William J. Chriss, Cage Wavell, Frank G. Davila, Augustin Rivera, Jr., Corpus Christi, for respondents.
This is a negligence action arising out of a collision between a station wagon and a parked tractor trailer. A take-nothing judgment against the plaintiffs, relatives of several individuals killed in the accident, was signed on September 21, 1990. Plaintiffs filed motions for new trial which the trial court granted on December 4, 1990 the 74th day after the date of judgment. On the 75th day, December 5, 1990, the trial court set aside its order granting the motions for new trial and overruled the motions.
Plaintiffs appealed complaining that the trial court acted without authority when it vacated its order for a new trial. The court of appeals sustained plaintiffs' point of error as to the motions for new trial, holding that the trial court did not have the authority during the 75-day period provided by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 329b to vacate the previously granted motions for new trial. 838 S.W.2d 573.
The pertinent provisions of Rule 329b provide as follows:
(c) In the event an original or amended motion for new trial or a motion to modify, correct or reform a judgment is not determined by written order signed within seventy-five days after the judgment was signed, it shall be considered overruled by operation of law on expiration of that period.
(d) The trial court, regardless of whether an appeal has been perfected, has plenary power to grant a new trial or to vacate, modify, correct, or reform the judgment within thirty days after the judgment is signed.
The court of appeals erred in holding that a trial court does not have the authority to vacate an order for a new trial during the 75-day period. Fulton v. Finch, 162 Tex. 351, 346 S.W.2d 823, 827 (1961).
A trial court has plenary power over its judgment until it becomes final. Mathes v. Kelton, 569 S.W.2d 876, 878 (Tex.19...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
East Texas Salt Water Disposal Co. v. Werline
...states, by statute, authorize general appeals from orders granting new trials, which is not so in Texas. Compare Fruehauf Corp. v. Carrillo, 848 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex.1993) ("An order granting a new trial is an unappealable, interlocutory order."), with Wages v. Smith Barney Harris Upham & Co.......
-
In re Diet Drugs
...over interlocutory orders and has the power to set those orders aside any time before a final judgment is entered." Fruehauf Corp. v. Carrillo, 848 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1993). The Texas order was "collateral or incidental to the main suit." "An order or judgment that is merely a ruling on a ......
-
Hughen v. State, 06-07-00093-CR.
...in the cause and the decree becomes final. See Rodriguez v. State, 852 S.W.2d 516, 520 (Tex.Crim.App.1993); Fruehauf Corp. v. Carrillo, 848 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex.1993); White v. Baptist St. Anthony's Hosp., 188 S.W.3d 373, 374-75 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2006, pet. denied); Orion Enters., Inc. v. Po......
-
In re Baylor Medical Center at Garland
...over twenty-seven years since its amendment, this Court has continued to interpret Rule 329b in accord with Fulton. In Fruehauf Corp. v. Carrillo, 848 S.W.2d 83 (Tex.1993), the trial court granted a motion for new trial but vacated the order within the seventy-five day period referenced in ......