 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sanchez v. Rodriguez8/23/2001
s generally contend that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the summary judgments and denying them additional discovery. Appellants refer this Court to their arguments and authorities set forth in their first six points of error and incorporate them into this point of error. However, appellants provide us with no specific authority or arguments related to the appeal of the denial of a motion for new trial, as required by appellate rule 38.1. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h) (appellant's brief must contain argument and authorities for contentions made). Appellants have not preserved this point for our review. Furthermore, having already discussed the issue of additional discovery and the granting of the summary judgments, we need not discuss the matters further. We overrule appellants' seventh point of error as to each appellee.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgments on appellants' DTPA, fraud, breach of contract, negligence, civil conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty causes of action as against the Francisco J. Rodriguez appellees, and on the DTPA, fraud, breach of contract, and negligence causes of action as against Raul Rodriguez. The judgments are reversed and remanded on appellants' breach of warranty cause of action as against the Francisco J. Rodriguez appellees, and on the breach of warranty, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy causes of action as against Raul Rodriguez.
NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ Justice
Do not publish . Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.
Opinion delivered and filed this 23rd day of August, 2001.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|