Court Opinion

ID: 9679723
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:03:52.464367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:18.898117
License: Public Domain

LEE ANN DAUPHINOT, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with most of the majority’s opinion, but I write separately because I dis*343agree with this court’s precedent regarding hearings on motions for new trial. As the majority notes, this court has held that whether to hold a hearing on a motion for new trial is discretionary with the trial court unless the ground asserted in the motion is jury misconduct.1 I believe that this court should follow the rule applied by other courts of appeals and in criminal law-that a trial court must hold a hearing on a motion for new trial if the motion “presents a question of fact upon which evidence must be heard” and alleges facts that, if true, would entitle the movant to a new trial.2 But because the outcome in this case would not be different under that rule, I concur.

. See Parham v. Wilbon, 746 S.W.2d 347, 351 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1988, no writ); see also Taylor v. Taylor, No. 02-05-00435-CV, 2007 WL 2460359, at *6 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Aug. 31, 2007, pet. denied).

. Cecil v. Smith, 804 S.W.2d 509, 512 n. 5 (Tex.1991) (citing Parham, 746 S.W.2d at 351); see also Hawkins v. Howard, 97 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.).