San Jacinto River Authority v. Duke
| Decision Date | 10 January 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. C-9147,C-9147 |
| Citation | 783 S.W.2d 209 |
| Parties | SAN JACINTO RIVER AUTHORITY, et al., Petitioners. v. John Thomas DUKE, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Ben Taylor, John Wesley Raley, Houston, for petitioners.
John W. Overton, Houston, for respondent.
This is a summary judgment case. Duke filed suit to recover damages for an alleged wrongful termination by the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA). Duke alleged that he was wrongfully fired by SJRA and that his case falls within the exception to the employment-at-will doctrine set forth in Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex.1985). The trial court granted SJRA's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Duke did not satisfy the elements of this exception.
The court of appeals reversed, stating that the proper method for attacking sufficiency of the pleadings is by special exception and that this should not be circumvented by a motion for summary judgment based on failure to state a cause of action. 778 S.W.2d 123. The court of appeals stated that, based on Duke's second amended petition, it was clear that he "was seeking damages other than for the alleged wrongful termination." Id. at 124. However, the court of appeals did not define what these other damages were or cite any authority for their existence. The court of appeals went on to state that, if the trial court granted leave for Duke to file his second amended petition (the record does not reflect whether leave was granted), the summary judgment must be reversed because it did not dispose of all Duke's causes of action. Chessher v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 658 S.W.2d 563 (Tex.1983). If, on the other hand, the trial court did not grant leave, the court of appeals determined the summary judgment must still be reversed since Duke was deprived of the opportunity to amend his pleadings to state a cause of action.
None of these grounds set forth by the court of appeals were raised by Duke in the court of appeals, nor were they briefed or assigned as error. In State Bar v. Evans, 774 S.W.2d 656 (Tex.1989), this court stated, "[n]one of the arguments were raised by [appellant] at trial or on appeal ... [and] the court of appeals ... erred in raising these arguments sua sponte and basing its reversal on these grounds." Id. at 658, n. 5. This statement forms a corollary to the well-established rule that grounds of error not asserted by points of error or argument in the court of appeals are waived. Gulf Coast State Bank v. Emenhiser, 562 S.W.2d 449, 452-53 (Tex.1978).
A case procedurally similar to the instant one is Central Education Agency v. Burke, 711 S.W.2d 7 (Tex.1986). In that case, the court of appeals reversed a summary judgment on grounds neither raised in opposition to the motion at the trial court level, nor presented to the court of appeals by brief or argument. This court held that the court of appeals could not raise grounds for reversal sua sponte. Id. at 9. By reversing the summary judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dallas County Community College v. Bolton
...§§ 61.060, 130.123(c). As the Class points out, the District did not preserve this issue in the trial court. See San Jacinto River Auth. v. Duke, 783 S.W.2d 209, 210 (Tex.1990). In the trial court, the District contended only that it had properly obtained student approval, not that it was e......
-
Miranda v. Byles
...Co., Inc. v. Wilson, 971 S.W.2d 447, 450 (Tex.1998); accord Vawter v. Garvey, 786 S.W.2d 263, 264 (Tex.1990); San Jacinto River Authority v. Duke, 783 S.W.2d 209, 210 (Tex.1990). An exception to this rule is that an appellate court can consider matters concerning the trial court's subject-m......
-
Hand v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc.
...considered by the trial court. Without proper assignment of error and argument, we cannot reverse a judgment. San Jacinto River Auth. v. Duke, 783 S.W.2d 209, 210 (Tex.1990); TEX.R.APP.P. Further, even if the amended petition was in the record and appellant had raised a point of error conce......
-
Bradshaw v. Bradshaw, 16–0328
...court of appeals may not reverse a trial court's judgment in the absence of properly assigned error."); San Jacinto River Auth. v. Duke , 783 S.W.2d 209, 210 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam) ("A court of appeals may not reverse a trial court's judgment in the absence of properly assigned error."); ......
-
CHAPTER 1 Preserving Issues for Appeal
...& Gas, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 492, 495 (Tex. 1991).[39] In re B.I.V., 870 S.W.2d 12, 13 (Tex. 1994).[40] See San Jacinto River Auth. v. Duke, 783 S.W.2d 209, 209–10 (Tex. 1990).[41] Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(g); Tenneco, Inc. v. Enter. Prods. Co., 925 S.W.2d 640, 647 (Tex. 1996).[42] Jaimes v. Fiesta ......