Court Opinion

ID: 9762554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:26:20.853006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:35.434848
License: Public Domain

ENOCH, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the result and reasoning of the majority. I write separately because I wish to call attention to the need for resetting the presumption in Aldridge. North East Independent School District v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 897 (Tex.1966). The presumption of finality should not balance *508upon so tenuous a fulcrum as whether the case was regularly set for trial on the merits.1 In my estimation, the presumption should be squarely founded upon an actual trial on the merits. That was the fact in Aldridge, and that is the fact in this case.2

. In the age of electronic communication and increased use of the telephone, it is not uncommon for court administrators to notify parties of trial settings. See Lewis v. Leftwich, 775 S.W.2d 848 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1989, orig. proceeding). In such cases, the determination of our jurisdiction may hinge on an event that does not even appear in the record on appeal.

. Although many of the issues in Aldridge were initially disposed of by summary judgment, the court reserved damages for conventional trial. Ultimately, that issue was tried on stipulated facts and a final judgment was thereafter rendered. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d at 895; See also Tex.R.Civ.P. 263.