TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Marquez

SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Irene MARQUEZ, Et Al., Respondents

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Marquez, 628 S.W.2d 772 (Tex. 1982)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Texas Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 3, 1982
Docket
No. C-979
Judges
Per Curiam
Citations
628 S.W.2d 77225 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 2121982 Tex. LEXIS 282

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Irene Marquez (Marquez) brought this suit against Sears, Roebuck & Company (Sears) seeking to recover damages for breach of a “Termite Control Contract and Guarantee.” The trial court rendered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of Sears, ignoring the jury’s verdict awarding $25,000 damages to Marquez to repair her house.

The court of appeals reviewed the evidence and agreed with the trial court’s judgment that there was no legally sufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings as to the existence or amount of damages. However, the court of appeals reversed the trial court, holding it erred in granting the judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and then remanded the cause in the interest of justice because: "... the parties are in agreement some new ... damage occurred . ...” 625 S.W.2d 52 .

We hold that under the record and circumstances before us the court of appeals’ reversal and remand in the interest of justice was not within its discretion. Under either Rule 434 or Rule 505 Tex.R.Civ.P., it is well settled that an errorless judgment of a trial court cannot be reversed in the interest of justice. See, General Motors Corp. v. Hopkins, 548 S.W.2d 344 (Tex.1977);

Uselton v. State, 499 S.W.2d 92 (Tex.1973); Calvert, In the Interest of Justice, 4 St. Mary’s L.J. 291 (1972).

An appellate court is not authorized to reverse the judgment of a trial court on the ground that the case has not been fully developed. It may only reverse for error committed at trial.

Barnum v. Lopez, 471 S.W.2d 567 (Tex.1971). Once an appellate court has concluded there is no evidence to support a necessary finding, it is not within its power to reverse the judgment and remand for further development of the same or similar evidence without finding some error in the judgment.

The court of appeals’ failure to affirm the judgment in favor of Sears under this record conflicts with the rule in the above cited cases and Rule 434, Tex.R.Civ.P. Pursuant to Rule 483, Tex.R.Civ.P., we grant petitioner’s writ of error and, without hearing oral argument, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and render judgment that Irene Marquez take nothing by her suit against Sears.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 18 cases

View all citing references →
1984: 11985: 31987: 11991: 22000: 12003: 12008: 12011: 42015: 22020: 12024: 119842026peak 2011 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. City of Pharr v. German Garcia, Anna Leal, Domingo Lopez Jr., San Juanita De La Fuente, and Ezequiel PerezNo. 13-15-00409-CV (Tex. App.—Edinburg-Corpus Christi Oct. 20, 2015)
  2. City of Pharr v. German Garcia, Anna Leal, Domingo Lopez Jr., San Juanita De La Fuente, and Ezequiel PerezNo. 13-15-00409-CV (Tex. App.—Edinburg-Corpus Christi Oct. 20, 2015)
  3. Andrews v. Houston Lighting & Power820 S.W.2d 411 (Tex. App. 1991)
  4. Gauthier v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.704 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. App. 1985) · Dissent
  5. Samlowski v. Wooten332 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. 2011)
  6. McKnight v. Hill & Hill Exterminators, Inc.689 S.W.2d 206 (Tex. 1985)

Most recent

  1. Shakeel Mustafa v. Pakiza AsimNo. 03-23-00018-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 20, 2024)
  2. Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc. v. Tyler LeeNo. 18-0309 (Tex. Nov. 20, 2020)
  3. City of Pharr v. German Garcia, Anna Leal, Domingo Lopez Jr., San Juanita De La Fuente, and Ezequiel PerezNo. 13-15-00409-CV (Tex. App.—Edinburg-Corpus Christi Oct. 20, 2015)
  4. City of Pharr v. German Garcia, Anna Leal, Domingo Lopez Jr., San Juanita De La Fuente, and Ezequiel PerezNo. 13-15-00409-CV (Tex. App.—Edinburg-Corpus Christi Oct. 20, 2015)
  5. In re the Marriage of Christine Ruth Slanker and Ted Eugene Slanker, Jr., and in the Interest of T. L. S., a Minor ChildNo. 06-11-00029-CV (Tex. App.—Texarkana Nov. 18, 2011)
  6. In re the Marriage of Christine Ruth Slanker and Ted Eugene Slanker, Jr., and in the Interest of T. L. S., a Minor ChildNo. 06-11-00029-CV (Tex. App.—Texarkana Nov. 18, 2011)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Hopkins, 548 S.W.2d 344 (Tex. 1977) 137
Uselton v. State, 499 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. 1973) 26
Barnum v. Lopez, 471 S.W.2d 567 (Tex. 1971) 8
Marquez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 625 S.W.2d 52 (Tex. App. 1981) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list