Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): portions of Cavnar. Sisters of Charity v. Dunsmoor, 832 S.W.2d 112, 115 (Tex.App.—Austin 1992, writ denied). However, the amendment adding section 6 was not effective until September 2, 1987. Any action commenced before this date is governed by the applicable law in effect before the effective date of the amendment. Tex. Rev.Civ.StatANN. art. 5069-1.05 historical note (Vernon Supp.1993) [Act of Sept. 2, 1987, 70th Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 3, § 1, 1987 Tex.Gen.Laws. 51, 52], The law in effect prior to the effective date of section 6 was Cavnar, and since appellants filed this suit on April 9, 1987, prior to the effective date of the amendment, Cavnar is controlling on the issue of prejudgment interest. See Granite Const. Co. v. Mendoza, 816 S.W.2d 756, 766 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1991, no writ) (<HOLDING>); O’Reilly v. Grafham, 797 S.W.2d 399, 401 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that provision in wrongful death act that allowed parents to recover exemplary damages was invalid under art 16  26 since legislature could not enlarge on exemplary damages (B) holding that prejudgment interest in suit filed before september 2 1987 not governed by article 5069105 section 6 (C) holding plaintiff could not recover prejudgment interest on exemplary damages because suit was filed on april 161987 and thus governed by cavnar and not article 5069105 (D) holding the eighth amendment inapplicable to an award of exemplary damages (E) holding that prejudgment interest is based on the amount of the judgment not the total amount of damages awarded by the jury because nonsettling defendants have no control over settlement negotiations and should not be forced to pay prejudgment interest on settling defendants parts of a damages award
Output (English): holding the eighth amendment inapplicable to an award of exemplary damages