[DOWNLOAD] "Ralph C. Schafer v. C. L. Conner" by Supreme Court of Texas No. D-0989 # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

📘 Read Now     📥 Download

eBook details

• Title: Ralph C. Schafer v. C. L. Conner
• Author : Supreme Court of Texas No. D-0989
• Release Date : January 19, 1991
• Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
• Pages : * pages
• Size : 55 KB

Description

C. L. Conner and others (Conner) developed a mobile home subdivision and sold certain lots to Ralph Schafer and others (Schafer). Schafer sued Conner for breach of contract and for violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA) for Conner's failure to satisfactorily develop the subdivision. At a bifurcated trial, the jury found that Conner breached the contract and violated the DTPA and the trial court assessed damages and entered judgment for some plaintiffs while rendering take nothing judgments against other plaintiffs. The prevailing plaintiffs who recovered damages appealed and challenged the adequacy of the damage award. They brought forth only a partial statement of facts and selectively included witness testimony. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed and rendered in part. 805 S.W.2d 554. The court of appeals overruled Schafer's factual insufficiently complaints because Schafer failed (1) to bring forth an entire statement of facts and (2) to comply with Tex. R. App. P. 53(d) by including ""a statement of the points to be relied on in his request to the court reporter."" This court has held that when an appellant complains of the factual or legal sufficiency of the evidence,1 the appellant's burden to show that the judgment is erroneous cannot be discharged in the absence of a complete or an agreed statement of facts. Englander Co. v. Kennedy, 428 S.W.2d 806, 807 (Tex. 1968). It is undisputed that Schafer failed to bring forth an entire statement of facts or an agreed statement of facts. Therefore, the court of appeals correctly overruled Schafer's complaints concerning the adequacy of the damages because in the absence of a complete statement of facts, it is presumed that the omitted evidence supports the trial court's judgment. See Englander Co. v. Kennedy, 428 S.W.2d at 806; Woodward v. Higdon, 643 S.W.2d 470, 471 (Tex. App.--Waco 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Ruffin v. Ruffin, 753 S.W.2d 824, 828 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, no writ).

PDF Books "Ralph C. Schafer v. C. L. Conner" Online ePub Kindle