Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. v. Sealy Independent School Dist.
| Decision Date | 07 September 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 17129,17129 |
| Citation | 572 S.W.2d 49 |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
| Parties | TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Appellant, v. SEALY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, R. L. Dittert, Individually and as Tax Assessor-Collector for the Sealy Independent School District, and Melvin Meier, Leroy Zapalac and Delmer Tipp, each Individually and in their capacities as Members of the Board of Equalization of the Sealy Independent School District, Appellees. (1st Dist.) |
Vinson & Elkins, David T. Hedges, Jr., Glen A. Rosenbaum, Houston, for appellant.
Conner, Odom & Clover, C. E. Clover, Jr., Sealy, Elvin E. Tackett, Bedford, for appellees.
This is a suit to invalidate the tax assessment made by the Sealy Independent School District on certain pipeline properties of Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation. An examination of the record demonstrates that Texas Eastern timely requested the trial court to file findings of fact and conclusions of law and properly called to the attention of the trial judge his failure to file findings of fact. The rule in this state is that the failure of the trial court to file findings of fact and conclusions of law when properly requested constitutes reversible error, unless the record before the appellate court affirmatively reflects that the complaining party has suffered no injury. Wagner v. Riske, 142 Tex. 337, 178 S.W.2d 117 (1944). Here conclusions of law were filed but the findings of fact on which they were based were not. Texas Eastern complains of the refusal of the trial court to file findings of fact by point of error number 11.
This point must be sustained. We conclude that instead of reversing the judgment, the proper order is one directing the trial court to file its findings of fact and conclusions of law. McShan v. Pitts, 538 S.W.2d 266 ().
The trial court is directed to file its original findings of fact and conclusions of law no later than September 18, 1978. Texas Eastern is allowed five days to request further, additional, or amended findings. After final action on such findings of fact and conclusions of law, same shall be filed in this court by supplemental transcript. The appellant will be allowed 30 days within which to file a supplemental brief, and the appellees are allowed 20 days to file reply briefs. Additional oral arguments will not be allowed.
The parties have requested numerous findings of fact. Rule 296,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Villagomez v. Rockwood Specialties, Inc.
...mindful that a trial court has no need to make findings concerning facts that are admitted. See, e.g., Tex. Eastern Transmission Corp. v. Sealy Indep. Sch. Dist., 572 S.W.2d 49, 51 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no The analysis below is a de novo review of the correctness of the tr......
-
Longoria v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
...Amended Findings. The court is not required to make findings exactly as requested by the losing party. Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. v. Sealy Independent School District, 572 S.W.2d 49 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1978, no writ). It is not reversible error to deny a requested findi......
-
Dura-Stilts Co. v. Zachry
...they relate to ultimate or controlling issues. They are not required if they are evidentiary only. Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. v. Sealy Independent School District, 572 S.W.2d 49, 51 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1978, no writ); see also Sauer v. Johnson, 520 S.W.2d 438, 442 (Tex.......
-
Rose v. Rose
...any harm to appellant on appeal because of the failure of the judge to comply with Rules 296 and 297. Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. v. Sealy Independent School District, 572 S.W.2d 49 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston (1st Dist.) 1978, no writ); Layton v. Layton, 538 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex.Civ.App. Sa......