Court Opinion

ID: 5089029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-01 14:54:09.458477+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:15.870702
License: Public Domain

I concur in the decision reached by the majority. Our decision is mandated by the fact that the supreme court gives no indication in Camacho v. Samaniego, 831 S.W.2d 804
(Tex. 1992), that that decision should have only a prospective application. Yet the rule announced in Camacho meets all the criteria for only a prospective application. SeeCarrollton-Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Edgewood Indep.Sch. Dist., 826 S.W.2d 489, 518 (Tex. 1992). I believe our decision is required under the language ofCamacho. However, I believe Camacho should have only had prospective application.