Court Opinion

ID: 9770151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:50:06.85465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:15.252914
License: Public Domain

TIM TAFT, Justice,
concurring ón denial of en banc rehearing.
What began as a benign growth allowing review of unripe claims on appeal, in Maf-rige,1 became a malignant cancer cutting off causes of action before trial, in Inglish.2 If it were up to me, I would lock Mother Hubbard in the cupboard and return to the rule before *428Aldridge3 that a judgment is final and ap-pealable only if it expressly disposes of all parties and all claims in the ease. That appellants can even cite authority for the absurd result they seek, illustrates how wrong a turn the law has taken in this area— and how strong the need to right it.
A unanimous Court voted to deny the motion for rehearing en banc.

. Kaigler, 961 S.W.2d at 277-78 (Justice Wilson dissenting).

. Mafrige v. Ross, 866 S.W.2d 590 (Tex.1993).

. Inglish v. Union State Bank, 945 S.W.2d 810 (Tex. 1997).