Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc.
- Court
- Texas Supreme Court
- Decided
- December 4, 1985
- Docket
- C-4141
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
Cited 6,606 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that, in reviewing a trial court decision under an abuse of discretion standard, we must determine whether the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules or principles — Watkins v. Jones (2006)
- holding that a trial court does not abuse its discretion unless it acts arbitrarily or unreasonably, without reference to any guiding rules or principles — (untitled) (2006)
- holding that an abuse of discretion is determined by examining whether the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules and principles — Michael Scott v. Officer Menchaca (2006)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
WALLACE, Justice.
This is an appeal from a judgment for damages in a suit brought under the Jones Act and under admiralty law. The trial dealt only with damages because the trial court struck the defendant’s answer as a discovery abuse sanction and signed an interlocutory default judgment as to liability. The court of appeals reversed the trial court judgment, holding that the action of [*240] that court was an error of law and an abuse of discretion. 689 S.W.2d 472. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The issues before us are whether TEX.R. CIV.P. 215a(c), as it existed prior to the amendment effective August 1, 1984, authorized the trial court to strike defendant’s answer, and, if so, whether the exercise of that authority constituted an abuse of discretion.
Cite this
Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (1985)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.