Court Opinion

ID: 9763313
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:40:57.989558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:40.917081
License: Public Domain

CARVER, Justice,
dissenting.
I am in agreement with the opinion of the majority that the judgment in favor of Margie F. Morgan was erroneous and that reversal is required; however, I disagree as to remand being the appropriate remedy.
I would hold that since Morgan had every opportunity to offer admissible evidence to support her cause of action, and the lawful measure of damages therefor, and had failed in her proof, despite the absence of *535her adversary, she is not entitled to another “bite at the apple” through remand. Jackson v. Ewton, 411 S.W.2d 715, 719 (Tex.1967).
We have sustained Compugraphic’s “no evidence” point and, in such circumstances, it is our duty to render judgment for Com-pugraphic. National Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Blagg, 438 S.W.2d 905, 909 (Tex.1969). The “interest of justice” reason cited by the majority for its order of remand is not applicable when Morgan “was provided an ample opportunity on the trial of the case to produce evidence on this point which was crucial to her right to recovery." Blagg, 438 S.W.2d at 911.
Rendition of judgment here for Compu-graphic would make it unnecessary to disturb the trial court’s order of severance as to Morgan’s claim against Solutek Corporation and I would so hold.