Munoz v. Gulf Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 05 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. C-3279,C-3279 |
| Citation | 693 S.W.2d 372 |
| Parties | Guadalupe MUNOZ, et al., Petitioners, v. GULF OIL COMPANY, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Small, Craig & Werkenthin, Dennis R. Reese, Austin, Weir & Alvarado, Warren N. Weir, San Antonio, for petitioners.
Sewell & Riggs, Gordon A. Holloway and Barry Abrams, Taylor, Hays, Price, McConn & Pickering, Michael S. Hays and Susan E. Crowley, Weitinger, Steelhammer & Tucker, Don Weitinger and Michael Hendryx, E.H. Brown and Eugene C. Marshall, Houston, Kenneth Heady and C.J. Roberts, Bartlesville, Okl., McLeod, Alexander, Powell & Apffel, Fredrick J. Bradford and Otto D. Hewitt, III, Galveston, for respondents.
Guadalupe Munoz sued the following oil and gas companies to recover for personal injuries sustained in an explosion: Amoco Production Company, Amoco Gas Company, Amoco Oil Company, Amerada Hess Corporation, Bonds Oil Company, Diamond Shamrock Oil Company, Farmland Industries, Inc., Gulf Oil Company, Warren Petroleum Company, Phillips Petroleum Company, Enterprise Products Company and Wylie L.P. Gas, Inc. The trial court granted pleas of privilege to Farmland Industries, Inc., Diamond Shamrock Oil Company, Bonds Oil Company, and Wylie L.P. Gas, Inc. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court judgment. Munoz v. Farmland Industries, Inc., 603 S.W.2d 225 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1980, writ dism'd).
Munoz proceeded with his suit against the remaining defendants. He alleged causes of action on negligence, products liability, breach of warranty, and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. In July 1982, the trial court granted summary judgment for Amoco Production Company, and Amoco Oil Company, Amerada Hess Corporation, Gulf Oil Company, Warren Petroleum Company, Phillips Petroleum Company and Enterprise Products Company. The court of appeals, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
Munoz contends the statement of facts from the plea of privilege hearing raises a fact issue precluding summary judgment for all the oil and gas companies. However, the statement of facts was never presented to nor considered by the trial court in ruling on the motion for summary judgment. If there is no file mark on a statement of facts or any other indication it was considered by the trial court at the time the motion for summary judgment was sustained, it may not be considered on appeal. Richman Trusts v. Kutner, 504 S.W.2d 539 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1973, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
Summary judgment is proper only if the movant conclusively proves "all the essential elements of his cause of action or defense as a matter of law." City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Centennial Ins. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co.
...proper for a defendant if it conclusively establishes all elements of its affirmative defense as a matter of law. Munoz v. Gulf Oil Co., 693 S.W.2d 372, 373 (Tex.1984) (quoting City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.1979)). The movant has the burden of showing there......
-
Duzich v. Marine Office of America Corp.
...A summary judgment is proper for a defendant if it conclusively establishes all elements of an affirmative defense. Munoz v. Gulf Oil Co., 693 S.W.2d 372, 373 (Tex.1984). When a defendant moves for summary judgment on the basis of limitations, it must prove that limitations have run as a ma......
-
Sanchez v. Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc.
...as to one element of the non-movants claim, the movant must establish each element of his defense as a matter of law. Munoz v. Gulf Oil Co., 693 S.W.2d 372, 373 (Tex.1984); Republic Bankers Life Insurance Co. v. Wood, 792 S.W.2d 768, 776 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1990, writ denied). Thus, when ......
-
Barbouti v. Hearst Corp.
...action, Goldberg, 775 S.W.2d at 752, or if it establishes all elements of an affirmative defense as a matter of law, Munoz v. Gulf Oil Co., 693 S.W.2d 372, 373 (Tex.1984). Where, as here, a trial court's order granting summary judgment does not specify the grounds relied on for its ruling, ......