Gulf Coast Investment Corp. v. NASA 1 Business Center
Tex.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026Michelle M. Buerger v. Brenda L. Gibson, Larry C. Gibson, Paris Housing Authority, Nancy (Jennifer) Winton, L.C.S., ABC, DEF, and XYZ Tex. App.-Texarkana
- 2026Michelle M. Buerger v. Jennifer Winton and ABC, DEF, and XYZ Tex. App.-Texarkana
- 2026Michelle M. Buerger v. Wade Sparks, Karen Sparks, and ABC, DEF, and XYZ Tex. App.-Texarkana
- 2026Michelle M. Buerger v. Billy Long Tex. App.-Texarkana
- 2024Justin Folsom v. Terry J. Foslom, Individually and as the Independent Administrator of the Estate of Murray C. Folsom Tex. App.
- 2024Ex Parte P. A. E., an Adult v. the State of Texas Tex. App.
- 2024NexGen Broadband, LLC v. Quanta Telecommunication Services, LLC. Tex. App.
- 2023Esmeralda Dominguez and Miguel Dominguez A/N/F of Abraham Dominguez v. Socorro ISD Tex. App.
- 2023Ex Parte R.M.A. v. the State of Texas Tex. App.
- 2022Nelly Suarez Garcia v. Lorrie Semler Tex. App.
Cites 1 case
- NASA I Business Center v. American National Insurance Co.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
GULF COAST INVESTMENT CORPORATION and American National Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. NASA 1 BUSINESS CENTER, Respondent.
Attorneys
- Thomas W. McQuage, Barlow, Todd, Crews & Jordan, Galveston, Joe R. Green-hill, Baker & Botts, Austin, Lee H. Rosen-thal, Geoffrey A. Price, John Zavitsanos; Baker & Botts, Houston, for petitioners.
- Charles W. Kelly, Matthew R. Muth, Griggs & Harrison, Houston, for respondent.
OPINION ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRIT OF ERROR
PER CURIAM.
The applications for writ of error are denied.
The court of appeals correctly held that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to hold an oral hearing on respondent’s motion to reinstate 747 S.W.2d 36. It is clear that an oral hearing is required on any timely filed motion to reinstate under TEX.R.CIV.P. 165a. The rule requires that the judge “shall set a hearing on the motion as soon as practicable,” and that the court “shall notify all parties or their attorneys of record of the date, time and place of the hearing” (emphasis added).
Not every hearing called for under every rule of civil procedure, however, necessarily requires an oral hearing. Rule 7, Rules of Judicial Administration, provides, in part, as follows:
A district or statutory county court judge shall:
(4) utilize to the extent consistent with safeguarding the rights of litigants to the just processing of their causes, methods to expedite the disposition of cases on the docket of the court, including
(b) the use of telephone or mail in lieu of personal appearance by attorneys for motion hearings_
(Emphasis added.) Unless required by the express language or the context of the particular rule, therefore, the term “hearing” does not necessarily contemplate either a personal appearance before the court or an oral presentation to the court.