Court Opinion

ID: 9633132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:34:56.10578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:29.733728
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON REHEARING
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., has filed a motion for rehearing in which Wal-Mart argues, among other things, that our opinion “erroneously states that Wal-Mart stipulated to the inadmissibility of the testimony of Plaintiffs’ first expert, David Dallas.” In our opinion, we stated: “[b]oth sides agree Dallas’ testimony is no longer admissible, since Dallas had been delisted, and should not be considered by this Court.” Merrell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 276 S.W.3d 117, 126, No. 06-07-00122-CV, 2008 Tex.App. LEXIS 9278, at *6, 2008 WL 5212852, *2-3 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2008, no pet. h.). Wal-Mart claims this statement was in error. According to Wal-Mart, it “agreed only that Plaintiffs had de-designated Dallas, but that the substance of his testimony remained in the record on appeal.”
The audio recording of the oral argument in this case supports the statement in our original opinion. During oral argument, Wal-Mart’s trial counsel affirmatively represented that Dallas’ testimony should not be considered. While discussing Dallas’ testimony, the following colloquy occurred between the Court and Wal-Mart’s appellate counsel:
[Justice Carter]: Is that evidence before the Court?
[Wal-Mart’s Counsel]: No, Your Honor. But it’s significant in this — that at the time that Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment he was the designated expert
[[Image here]]
[[Image here]]
[Justice Carter]: ... Are both of those experts still — evidence still — in the record for summary judgment purposes? [Wal-Mart’s Counsel]: No, Your Honor. The original expert’s report is in the record, but he was dedesignated and so the report that — you know — essentially serves as plaintiffs evidence here is Dr. Beyler, the second expert....
After reviewing the audio recording, this Court is convinced that it did not err in representing that Wal-Mart had agreed Dallas’ testimony was no longer admissible for summary judgment purposes and should not be considered by this Court.
The remaining arguments advanced by Wal-Mart are overruled for the reasons stated in our original opinion. Wal-Mart’s motion for rehearing is denied.