Court Opinion

ID: 9662710
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:16:01.253678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:41.550845
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON REHEARING
In a motion for rehearing, Fuselier contends we should have applied an abuse of discretion standard of review when ruling on Fuselier’s Robinson2 challenge to Naples’ opinion. Fuselier states in his motion, “[i]f, when rendering summary judgment, the trial court concluded Naples’ opinion was unreliable and inadmissible, a reversal and remand by this Court requires a determination that the trial court abused its discretion.” The test for an abuse of discretion is whether the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex.1985). A review for an abuse of discretion, however, would have required us to conclude the trial court “acted” with respect to Fuselier’s Robinson challenge. Although Fuselier maintained the trial court implicitly ruled on his Robinson challenge, we rejected this argument, saying:
Fuselier ... made numerous other objections to Bray’s summary judgment evidence. It could be argued that the court’s granting of summary judgment was an implicit ruling on any one of these other objections. Considering these other objections for which no ruling was obtained, we cannot say the court’s granting of summary judgment was an implicit ruling on Fuselier’s Robinson challenge.
Because we concluded the trial court did not rule on Fuselier’s Robinson challenge, we had no act to review for an abuse of discretion. We discussed Naples’ qualifications as an expert only because his qualifications went to the substance of the affidavit offered as evidence by Bray.
The motion is overruled.

. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex.1995).