Thordson v. City of Houston
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
- 2025Interra Credit Union v. Enrique Figueroa Laboy Tex. App.-Houston [15th Dist.]
- 2023Esmeralda Dominguez and Miguel Dominguez A/N/F of Abraham Dominguez v. Socorro ISD Tex. App.
- 2023Frederick Wright v. Railroad Commission of Texas Tex. App.
- 2021Bernardo Ortiz v. Carlos Rodriguez, Graves MF TX Vickery, LLC, and Rush Graves Tex. App.
- 2021Donald Young and Doris Young v. Dwayne R. Day, P.C. and Dwayne R. Day Tex. App.
- 2019PNC Equipment Finance, LLC v. Matthew Ward Hanna Tex. App.
- 2018Roush v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. Tex. App. Ct.
- 2018Dale Roush, Individually and as Trustee of the Dale Roush Assets Trust v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Joel Hart Tex. Crim. App.
- 2018Courtney Christopher v. Juan Echevarria Tex. App.
- 2017Stacey D. Howard v. Jack v. Lowery Tex. App.
Cites 2 cases
- Thordson v. City of Houston
- Gulf Coast Investment Corp. v. NASA 1 Business Center
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Milton I. THORDSON, Petitioner, v. The CITY OF HOUSTON, Respondent.
Attorneys
- James R. Jones, Houston, for petitioner.
- Luke L. Daniel, Clarence A. West, John E. Fisher, Houston, for respondent.
This appeal arises from the trial court’s failure to reinstate a wrongful discharge suit against the City of Houston after dismissing it for want of prosecution. Milton I. Thordson, petitioner, complains that the trial court’s failure to hold a hearing on his timely-filed, properly verified motion to reinstate was an abuse of discretion because it is required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a. We agree and reverse and remand this cause to the trial court for a hearing on the motion to reinstate.
Rule 165a(4) requires that the judge “shall set a hearing on the motion [to reinstate] as soon as practicable” and “[t]he court shall notify all parties or their attorneys of record of the date, time and place of the hearing.” In Gulf Coast Investment Corp. v. NASA 1 Business Center, we held that under this language “it is clear that an oral hearing is required on any timely filed motion to reinstate under rule 165a.” 754 S.W.2d 152, 153 (Tex.1988) (per curiam denying writ). Given the rule and the language of the case, it was not within the discretion of the trial court to fail to hold an oral hearing on the motion to reinstate. There is no dispute that Thord-son did properly request a hearing. Although the grounds of attorney nonfea-sance stated in his motion may not trigger mandatory reinstatement of his claim under rule 165a(3), he, nevertheless, is entitled to a hearing on his motion. We therefore grant Petitioner’s application for writ of error, and pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 170, without hearing oral argument, a majority of this court reverses the judgment of the court of appeals, 809 S.W.2d 905, and remands the case to the trial court to conduct a hearing on the motion for reinstatement as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a.