Source: http://www.houston-opinions.com/law-amending-pleadings-under-TRCP.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:18:25+00:00

Document:
Wilmot v. Smith Int’l, Inc., 312 S.W.3d 771, 778 (Tex App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.).
"unless there is a showing that such filing will operate as a surprise to the opposite party." Tex. R. Civ. P. 63.
allowance of such amendment would prejudice him in maintaining his action or defense upon the merits." Tex.
and thus is prejudicial on its face, and the opposing party objects to the amendment. Greenhalgh v. Serv.
Lloyds Ins. Co., 787 S.W.2d 938, 939 (Tex. 1990); Hakemy Bros., Ltd. v. State Bank &Trust Co., Dallas, 189 S.
situation, the opposing party's objection is sufficient to show surprise. Greenhalgh, 787 S.W.2d at 940 n.3.
showing that such filing will operate as a surprise to the opposite party.
judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c) (emphasis added).
Gateway S. Joint Venture v. Eller Media Co., 159 S.W.3d 183, 187 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2004, no pet.)).
presumption that leave was granted when amended pleadings are filed after the summary judgment hearing.
Sales Enters., Inc., 896 S.W.2d 320, 323 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ)); see also Austin v.
pleading, the appellate court will assume leave was denied." Austin, 261 S.W.3d at 76.
Inc. v. Harris, 245 S.W.3d 476, 487 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (citing Blancett v.
Lagniappe Ventures, Inc., 177 S.W.3d 584, 592 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.); Smith v. Atl.
Richfield Co., 927 S.W.2d 85, 88 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, writ denied)).
summary judgment filed after court-ordered deadline to amend pleadings).
01-08-00481-CV Graham Mensa-Wilmot v. Smith International, Inc.
(Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ)).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.