S & A Restaurant Corp. v. Leal, No. 94-0844

CourtSupreme Court of Texas
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation892 S.W.2d 855
Parties38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 303 S & A RESTAURANT CORPORATION D/B/A Steak & Ale Restaurant, Petitioner v. Annie Marie LEAL, Respondent.
Decision Date16 February 1995
Docket NumberNo. 94-0844

Page 855

892 S.W.2d 855
38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 303
S & A RESTAURANT CORPORATION D/B/A Steak & Ale Restaurant, Petitioner
v.
Annie Marie LEAL, Respondent.
No. 94-0844.
Supreme Court of Texas.
Feb. 16, 1995.

Page 856

Marie R. Yeates, Penelope Nicholson, Stephanie K. Crain, Catherine Bulowski Smith, Houston, Lewin Plunkett, and Kerby A. Johnson, San Antonio, for petitioner.

Pat Maloney, Sr., Michael D. Maloney, Charles Nicholson, San Antonio, Christa Brown, Austin, and Sean F. O'Neill, San Antonio, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The question presented by this appeal is whether S & A Restaurant Corporation d/b/a Steak & Ale Restaurant (Steak & Ale) revoked its consent to a settlement agreement with Annie Marie Leal prior to the trial court's rendition of judgment. The trial court purported to render an agreed judgment on the settlement agreement. The court of appeals determined that the trial court rendered judgment before Steak & Ale's revocation of consent, but remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing on Steak & Ale's motion for new trial. 883 S.W.2d 221, 228-30. A majority of this Court reverses the judgment of the court of appeals and remands this case for a new trial.

Leal filed this personal injury suit against Steak & Ale claiming that she sustained serious head, back, and neck injuries when a waiter at a Steak & Ale Restaurant dropped a large tray of double-plated dinners on her. According to Leal's testimony at trial and the depositions of Leal's doctors, Leal was confined to a wheelchair as a result of the accident. At a hearing on May 14, 1991, the parties agreed to settle for $2 million, at which time the following exchange took place:

THE COURT: Yes. We need to go on the record.

[PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY]: And I would say to you, just listen to this. So that we have now asked the Court to approve a settlement in the total sum of $2 million.

Before doing that, however, and we need to know that you understand it, that you want it settled, that you approve of it, and that you understand that forever concludes your claim against Steak & Ale.

Page 857

Do you understand all of that?

MS. LEAL: Yes, sir.

[PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY]: And do you ask the Judge and want the Judge to approve the conclusion and settlement?

MS. LEAL: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: You realize that once this Judgment is signed and I approve it, everything else, it's full, final and complete? You can't come back later and say, "Well I made a mistake," or "We should have gone for more"? Whatever? Do you understand?

MS. LEAL: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Are the court costs going to be paid by Defendants?

[PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY]: Yes.

[DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY]: Normally we pay for the court costs. Yes, we'll agree to pay the costs.

THE COURT: You realize now, and you are sufficiently aware of the facts now, and there isn't any question about your understanding the total settlement is $2 million? Do you understand that?

MS. LEAL: Yes, sir. I understand that. Mike and I--

THE COURT: And you want me to approve the settlement and sign the Judgment?

MS LEAL: Yes, sir.

[PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY]: And you understand that once you settle the claim you will be responsible for paying all of your medical bills?

THE COURT: And the attorneys' fees come out of that. Do you understand?

MS. LEAL: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: I'll approve the settlement.

One month after the May 14 hearing, a legal assistant employed by Steak & Ale's counsel in this case, saw Leal walking without apparent difficulty in a San Antonio restaurant. Steak & Ale hired private investigators who watched and videotaped Leal for five days. During that time, none of the investigators saw...

To continue reading

Request your trial
199 practice notes
  • Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado, No. 95-0969
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • September 24, 1998
    ...by the summary judgment, thus converting the partial summary judgment into a final, appealable judgment. Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado, 892 S.W.2d at 855. We remanded the case to the court of appeals to allow it to consider the Alvarados' contention that their "no lap belt" claim was not pr......
  • Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Anderson, No. 14-98-01286-CV.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • August 16, 2001
    ...Antonio 1994) (Hardberger, J., concurring in denial of cn banc review) (stating case did not meet "exacting standard"of the rule), rev'd, 892 S.W.2d 855 3. The language in this portion of Rule 41.2 is nearly identical to that in the former rule. 4. Appellant noted only that Gannett Outdoor ......
  • Bates v. Tesar, No. 08-01-00026-CV.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • June 6, 2002
    ...binding on the appellate court. MA Restaurant Corp. v. Leal, 883 S.W.2d 221, 225 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1994), rev'd on other grounds, 892 S.W.2d 855 (Tex.1995)(per curiam); Wade v. Anderson, 602 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Tex.Civ. App. — Beaumont 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Consequently, we conclude ......
  • State v. Naylor (In re State), No. 11–0114
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • June 19, 2015
    ...the trial court officially announces its decision in open court or by written memorandum filed with the clerk.”S & A Rest. Corp. v. Leal, 892 S.W.2d 855, 857 (Tex.1995) (citing Comet Aluminum Co. v. Dibrell, 450 S.W.2d 56, 58 (Tex.1970) ) (other citations omitted). A trial court renders jud......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
199 cases
  • Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado, No. 95-0969
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • September 24, 1998
    ...by the summary judgment, thus converting the partial summary judgment into a final, appealable judgment. Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado, 892 S.W.2d at 855. We remanded the case to the court of appeals to allow it to consider the Alvarados' contention that their "no lap belt" claim was not pr......
  • Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Anderson, No. 14-98-01286-CV.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • August 16, 2001
    ...Antonio 1994) (Hardberger, J., concurring in denial of cn banc review) (stating case did not meet "exacting standard"of the rule), rev'd, 892 S.W.2d 855 3. The language in this portion of Rule 41.2 is nearly identical to that in the former rule. 4. Appellant noted only that Gannett Outdoor ......
  • Bates v. Tesar, No. 08-01-00026-CV.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • June 6, 2002
    ...binding on the appellate court. MA Restaurant Corp. v. Leal, 883 S.W.2d 221, 225 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1994), rev'd on other grounds, 892 S.W.2d 855 (Tex.1995)(per curiam); Wade v. Anderson, 602 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Tex.Civ. App. — Beaumont 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Consequently, we conclude ......
  • State v. Naylor (In re State), No. 11–0114
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • June 19, 2015
    ...the trial court officially announces its decision in open court or by written memorandum filed with the clerk.”S & A Rest. Corp. v. Leal, 892 S.W.2d 855, 857 (Tex.1995) (citing Comet Aluminum Co. v. Dibrell, 450 S.W.2d 56, 58 (Tex.1970) ) (other citations omitted). A trial court renders jud......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT