Dear All:
I’ve gotten a little closer to catching up, owing to the fact that the courts of appeals did not issue a lot of error preservation decisions in the last couple of weeks.
Table of Contents
Now for the cases:
You have to obtain a ruling on your complaint:
Venue: “To the extent that Wade’s “Motion to Dismiss” could reasonably be construed as a motion to transfer venue—which we think it could not, and which argument Wade does not make, in any event—the record does not reflect that he requested or obtained a hearing on the motion and did not obtain a ruling on it, which omissions would also waive his venue objection. See Eggert v. State, No. 03-12-00190-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 5107, 2013 WL 1831614, at * 1 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 24, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.)” Wade v. TBF Fin., LLC, No. 03-18-00370-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 1675, at *4 n.1 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 6, 2019)
You have to comply with the pertinent rules:
Factual Sufficiency: “In addition, Rule 324 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure requires a motion for new trial in order to preserve “[a] complaint of factual sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury finding.” In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534, 547 (Tex. 2003) (citing Tex. R. Civ. P. 324(b)(2)); Cecil v. Smith, 804 S.W.2d 509, 510 (Tex. 1991). Where, as here, A.A. failed to file a [*5] motion for new trial raising a factual sufficiency challenge to the jury’s verdict, the issue has not been preserved for our review.” In the Interest of A.R.G.-A., No. 06-18-00103-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 2102, at *4-5 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Mar. 15, 2019)
All for now. More later.
Yours,
Steve Hayes