Court Opinion

ID: 9681664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:54:15.894209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:35.260434
License: Public Domain

COLLINGS, Justice
(concurring).
I concur with the reversal and remanding of this case. Generally an appellate court has broad discretion as to whether to render or remand the case to the trial court on a reversal of the judgment. A remand is held to be proper where the case has not been fully developed or where the ends of justice will be better served by causing the case to be sent back to the district court for further proceedings. Dahlberg et al. v. Holden, 150 Tex. 179, 238 S.W.2d 699 (1951); Scott v. Liebman, 404 S.W.2d 288 (Sup.Ct.1966); Texas Sling Company v. Emanuel, 431 S.W.2d 538 (Sup.Ct.1968); Morgan v. Box, 449 S.W.2d 499 (Tex.Civ.App., 1969, no writ history). From the record there can be no question that the case was not fully developed in the trial court. The evidence introduced in the trial court failed to connect appellant with the product alleged to have been manufactured and sold to ap-pellee. From the briefs of the parties on this appeal it is apparent that appellant’s attorney admitted by deposition that appellant did manufacture and sell the product in question. It is difficult to see how appellant could be unjustly treated by remand*87ing the case and permitting appellee to show such admission. In the interest of justice and to permit the case to be fully developed, the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
WALTER, J., joins in the above concurring opinion.