Court Opinion

ID: 9659425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:45:16.314107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:07.954405
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In its motion for rehearing, Pinnacle Data Services, Inc. (PDS) contends the entire case must have been remanded, not just those points that were not addressed in Joseph Gillen’s motion for summary judgment. In support of its contention, PDS relies on Uribe v. Houston General Insurance Co., 849 S.W.2d 447, 449-50 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1993, no writ), and Chessher v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 658 S.W.2d 563 (Tex.1983). We have reviewed the relevant line of cases dealing with this issue. Our disposition is correct.
We note that there has been, in the past, some confusion about whether certain summary judgments are final and appealable and about how they should be handled on appeal. Recent cases have put that confusion to rest. To the extent Ur-ibe and Chessher would require a complete remand of this case, they, and cases of their lineage, have been superseded by subsequent, controlling precedent. Where, as here, a final summary judgment has disposed of a case and included causes of action not addressed in the underlying motion, that judgment is erroneous and must be affirmed as to the causes of action properly adjudged and remanded as to those causes of action not addressed in the underlying motion. Jacobs v. Satterwhite, 65 S.W.3d 653 (Tex.2001); Bandera Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Gilchrist, 946 S.W.2d 336 (Tex.1997); Page v. Getter, 941 S.W.2d 101 (Tex.1997); Eleven v. Tex. Dept. of Criminal Justice-I.D., 69 S.W.3d 341, 344 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2002, no pet.).
We overrule PDS’s motion for rehearing.