Norman Communications v. Texas Eastman Co.
| Decision Date | 30 October 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-0651,97-0651 |
| Parties | 41 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 83 NORMAN COMMUNICATIONS, Petitioner, v. TEXAS EASTMAN COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Ron Adkison, J. Mitchell Beard, Henderson, for Petitioner.
Loren B. Smith, Longview, for Respondent.
Norman Communications appealed from a post-answer default judgment by way of writ of error to the court of appeals. Norman alleged two grounds for setting aside the judgment: (1) it did not receive notice of the trial setting; and (2) the evidence was not legally sufficient to support the default judgment. The court of appeals overruled Norman's point of error on lack of notice. The court of appeals then held that it could not reach Norman's claim that the evidence was not legally sufficient to support the default judgment. We conclude that the court of appeals should have reached Norman's legal sufficiency claim. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals' judgment and remand this cause to the court of appeals for review of Norman's legal sufficiency point of error.
A direct attack on a judgment by writ of error must: (1) be brought within six months after the trial court signs the judgment; (2) by a party to the suit; (3) who did not participate in the actual trial; and (4) the error complained of must be apparent from the face of the record. See TEX. CIV. Prac. & Rem.Code § 51.013; TEX.R.APP. P. 45 1; DSC Finance Corp. v. Moffitt, 815 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.1991). Review by writ of error affords an appellant the same scope of review as an ordinary appeal, that is, a review of the entire case. See Gunn v. Cavanaugh, 391 S.W.2d 723, 724 (Tex.1965). The only restriction on the scope of writ of error review is that the error must appear on the face of the record. See General Elec. Co. v. Falcon Ridge Apartments, 811 S.W.2d 942, 943 (Tex.1991).
The face of the record, for purposes of writ of error review, consists of all the papers on file in the appeal, including the statement of facts. DSC Finance Corp., 815 S.W.2d at 551. It necessarily follows that review of the entire case includes review of legal and factual insufficiency claims. See Herbert v. Greater Gulf Coast Enter., 915 S.W.2d 866, 870 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ); Specia v. Specia, 292 S.W.2d 818, 819 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1956, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
There is no question that Norman met the first three requirements for writ of error review. The issue to resolve is whether Norman can show error on the face of the record. Here, the court of appeals correctly found...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Taylor
...when the Supreme Court adopted the current appellate rules in 1997.3 See Tex. R. App. P. 30 cmt.; Norman Communications v. Texas Eastman Co., 955 S.W.2d 269, 270 n.1 (Tex. 1997) (per curiam); Hollister v. Palmer Indep. Sch. Dist., 958 S.W.2d 956, 958 n.1 (Tex. App.--Waco 1998, no pet.). In ......
-
Taylor v. Taylor
...when the Supreme Court adopted the current appellate rules in 1997.3 See Tex. R. App. P. 30 cmt.; Norman Communications v. Texas Eastman Co., 955 S.W.2d 269, 270 n.1 (Tex. 1997) (per curiam); Hollister v. Palmer Indep. Sch. Dist., 958 S.W.2d 956, 958 n.1 (Tex. App.--Waco 1998, no pet.). In ......
-
Salas v. Chris Christensen Sys. Inc.
...face of the record, we consider all the papers on file in the appeal, including the reporter's record. Norman Comm'cns v. Tex. Eastman Co., 955 S.W.2d 269, 270 (Tex. 1997) (per curiam).III. CHRISTENSEN'S PLEADINGS In his first issue, Salas complains that the trial court erred in granting Ch......
-
Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. v. Schuster
...and (4) the error complained of must be apparent from the face of the record. Tex.R.App. P. 30; Norman Communications v. Texas Eastman Co., 955 S.W.2d 269, 270 (Tex.1997) (per curiam). Schuster does not dispute that Petco satisfied the first three conditions for bringing a restricted appeal......