Court Opinion

ID: 9768231
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:51:37.549272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:38.420068
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
COUNTISS, Justice.
In their motion for rehearing, the beneficiaries contend, among other things, that we have given retroactive effect to rule 166-A of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended effective January 1,1978.
The motion for summary judgment was filed on November 16,1977 and supplemented on January 20, 1978. It was heard on April 10, 1978 and decided on November 6, 1978. Within this time frame, we are satisfied the rule as amended, and as construed in City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.1979), is applicable to this case. Although the motion was filed prior to the effective date of the amended rule, no action was taken on the motion until April 10, 1978, over three months after the effective date of the amendments. As stated in Hoppe v. Hughes, 577 S.W.2d 773, 775 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1979, writ ref’d n. r. e.):
absent a contrary intent expressed, the rule applies from its effective date to control the subsequent steps taken in the pending litigation. Brooks v. Texas Employers Insurance Association, 358 S.W.2d 412, 414 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston 1962, writ ref’d n. r. e.) . . . . Indeed, one appellate court, considering the same question, has held that the appeal must be considered and treated under the procedural rules in effect at the time of the consideration of the appeal. Delta Brands, Inc. v. Borden Metal Products Co., 570 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1978), writ ref’d n. r. e., 570 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.1978); Logan v. Barge, 568 S.W.2d 863, 865 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1978, writ ref’d n. r. e.).
The amended rule has not been applied retroactively. It has been applied from its effective date to control the subsequent steps taken in the pending litigation.
The beneficiaries also contend that a supplemental brief filed by Mrs. Capp immediately prior to submission of this case, directing our attention to the Clear Creek case, raised new points and theories and was filed without proper leave of court. Whether or not leave was obtained, a point disputed by Mrs. Capp, the supplemental brief was simply a discussion of a recent Texas Supreme Court decision with which this court is presumed to be familiar and is required to follow. See Woodard v. Texas Dept. of Human Resources, 573 S.W.2d 596, 598 (Tex.Civ.App—Amarillo 1978, writ ref’d n. r. e.).
The other points presented in the motion for rehearing have been fully considered by the court and found to be without merit. The motion for rehearing is overruled.
DODSON, J., not participating.