Robertson v. BLACKWELL ZINC COMPANY INC.
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- San Juan 1990-A, L.P. v. Meridian Oil Inc. (Tex. App. 1997)
- Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S. Inc. v. McDonald (Tex. App. 1991)
- Risher v. Risher (Tex. App. 1977)
- City of San Benito v. Rio Grande Valley Gas Co. (Tex. 2003)
- Continental Casualty Co. v. Huizar (Tex. 1987)
- Interfirst Bank Dallas, N.A. v. Risser (Tex. App. 1987)
- Hubbard v. Lagow (Tex. App. 1977)
- Grohn v. Marquardt (Tex. App. 1972)
- Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Vines (Tex. App. 1970)
- Industrial Generating Co. v. Jenkins (Tex. App. 1966)
- Gunn v. Cavanaugh (Tex. 1965)
- in Re State of Texas (Tex. 2015)
- in Re State of Texas (Tex. 2015)
- Ex Parte Stiles (Tex. App. 1997)
- Brittian v. General Telephone Co. of Southwest (Tex. App. 1976)
- Robinson v. Robbins Petroleum Corporation, Inc. (Tex. 1973)
- Collins v. Collins (Tex. App. 1971)
- Stonedale v. Stonedale (Tex. App. 1966)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
The Court of Civil Appeals correctly held that there was a defect in parties defendant and that the judgment rendered by the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded for new trial. Ambassador Oil Co. v. Robertson, 384 S.W.2d 752. The issue upon which this holding was based was properly presented by application for writ of error to the Court of Civil Appeals filed by parties not expressly named as defendants in the plaintiff’s trial petition but considered as parties to the suit by the trial court under the doctrine of virtual representation. Rule 42, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Such parties did not participate in person or by attorney in the trial before the District Court and hence were not precluded from obtaining appellate review by writ of error because of the provisions of Article 2249a, Vernon’s Ann.Tex. Stats.
The holding mentioned supports the order of reversal and remand and the application for writ of error to this Court is “refused, no reversible error.” Our action herein is not to be construed as approving or disapproving the other holdings contained in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.