Court Opinion

ID: 9818481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 05:48:34.87358+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:51:57.436009
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON REHEARING
On rehearing, Seitel Data, Ltd., raises three issues that it asks us to reconsider. The first two issues were directly addressed in our opinion, and we will not revisit those matters. In its third issue, Seitel complains that we did not address its issue raising factual sufficiency. We have again reviewed Seitel’s brief. Factual sufficiency was not addressed in the arguments. Each evidentiary argument raised therein is directed at legal sufficiency, or is phrased as seeking a ruling as a matter of law. Neither of those matters involves a contention that the evidence is factually insufficient. Seitel points out that its briefing included a paragraph containing the standard of review for factual sufficiency. This is correct. There is, however, no issue raising factual sufficiency, and there is no argument attempting to apply a factual sufficiency review. To the contrary, each argument made asks for rendition, not the new trial that is awarded to a party prevailing on a factual sufficiency claim.
As a final point, we also recognize that in its prayer, Seitel sought only rendition, and not a new trial on the merits of this case.
Appellant Seitel Data, Ltd. respectfully requests that this Honorable Court reverse the trial court’s judgment and render judgment that Appellee take nothing by his suit.
An appellate court cannot grant relief that a party has not requested. If an appellant requests reversal and rendition of judgment, an appellate court will not reverse and remand for a new trial. Molina v. Moore, 33 S.W.3d 323, 327 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2000, no pet.); see Stevens v. Nat’l Educ. Ctr., Inc., 11 S.W.3d 185, *796186 (Tex.2000); Horrocks v. Tex. Dep’t of Transp., 852 S.W.2d 498 (Tex.1993).
We deny the motion for rehearing.