Court Opinion

ID: 9682970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:20:14.175942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:43.624868
License: Public Domain

MURPHY, Chief Justice,
concurring.
While I agree with the majority’s decision to affirm the trial court’s decision, I would not reach the determination of whether Medina has met the Craddock test because I believe prior precedent of this court establishes that the test does not apply in reviewing a motion for new trial following an unopposed summary judgment. See Crime Control, Inc. v. RMH-Oxford Joint Venture, 712 S.W.2d 550, 551-52 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no writ); see also Enernational Corp. v. Exploitation Eng’rs, 705 S.W.2d 749, 751 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st *332Dist.] 1990, writ ref d n.r.e.) (refusing to apply Craddock). Therefore, I concur in the judgment only as to Medina’s third point of error.