O'NEIL v. Mack Trucks, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
28 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund, LP and Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund II, LP v. Primexx Energy Corporation, M. Christopher Doyle, Angelo Acconcia, Blackstone Inc., Blackstone Holdings III LP, Blackstone EMA II LLC, BMA VII LLC, Blackstone Energy Management Associates II LLC, Blackstone Energy Partners II LP, Blackstone Management Associates VII LLC, Blackstone Capital Partners VII LP, BCP VII/BEP II Holdings Manager LLC, BX Primexx Topco LLC, and BPP Holdco LLC (Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District 2025)
- Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Chemical Lime, Ltd. (Tex. 2009)
- Fletcher v. Blair (Tex. App. 1994)
- Humble Exploration Co. v. Browning (Tex. App. 1985)
- In re Starns (District Court, S.D. Texas 1985)
- Brown v. Gonzales (Tex. App. 1983)
- Bexar Appraisal District v. Yvondia Johnson (Tex. 2024)
- Karen Marie Ryan v. State (Tex. App. 2016)
- Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas, Inc. v. Hogue (Tex. 2009)
- Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Chemical Lime, Ltd. (Tex. 2009)
- the City of Keller v. John W. Wilson, Grace S. Wilson, Johnny L. Wilson, and Nancy A. Wilson (Tex. App. 2007)
- the City of Keller v. John W. Wilson, Grace S. Wilson, Johnny L. Wilson, and Nancy A. Wilson (Tex. App. 2007)
- Morgan Buildings & Spas, Inc v. Turn-Key Leasing, Ltd. (Tex. App. 2003)
- Marcilea Fletcher v. Allison Jennifer Blair, Patricia Huntington, A/K/A Patience Huntington, Brett James Strasma & Paula Kay Galbraith (Tex. App. 1994)
- City of Austin, Jim Everett, Raymond Sanders and Freddie Maxwell v. Earl J. Gifford (Tex. App. 1992)
- Cranfill v. Scott & Fetzer Co. (District Court, E.D. Texas 1991)
- Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Robert P. Kaminsky, M.D., P.A. (Tex. App. 1989)
- Lindberg v. Williston Industrial Supply Corp. (N.D. 1987)
- Stra, Inc. v. Seafirst Commercial Corp. (Tex. App. 1987)
- General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Byrd (Tex. App. 1986)
- In re Parker (United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas 1983)
- United States v. Lucille Mitzy Bosco Rogers, Individually and as Surviving Spouse of Philip S. Bosco (5th Cir. 1981)
- Roylex, Inc. v. E. F. Johnson Co. (Tex. App. 1981)
- Ward v. First State Bank (Tex. App. 1980)
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
It has been called to our attention by Motion to Recall Mandate filed by Mack Trucks, Inc., and Mack Financial Corporation, Respondents, that the mandate recites that the judgments of the District Court and of the Court of Civil Appeals are reversed, and judgment rendered for Petitioner Truman O’Neil, Individually and d/b/a Mesa Mack Sales.
This recitation is in error; the motion is granted and the mandate is recalled.
As stated in the opinion delivered by this Court on September 29, 1976, the only matter brought forward by Petitioner O’Neil in his application for writ of error was the severed cause involving the award by the trial court of foreclosure of a lien on a 4.09 acre tract of land claimed by O’Neil as his business homestead. As to this severed cause, the Court of Civil Appeals had reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause. 533 S.W.2d 832. Pursuant to Petitioner O’Neil’s application for writ of error, this Court reversed the judgments of the trial court and of the Court of Civil Appeals in this severed cause and rendered judgment for Petitioner O’Neil. 542 S.W.2d 112.
The judgment of the trial court was otherwise affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals and this portion of the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals was not before this Court. There was not, and could not *33 have been, any adjudication by this Court with respect to its validity or effect.
Accordingly, the Motion of Mack Trucks, Inc. and Mack Financial Corporation to recall the mandate issued by this Court under date of November 15,1976 is granted. The mandate will be reissued to correctly reflect the action of this Court pursuant to its opinion delivered September 29, 1976, namely, that of reversing the judgments of the trial court and of the Court of Civil Appeals in the severed cause brought forward by writ of error involving the foreclosure of a lien on a 4.09 acre tract of land claimed by O’Neil as his business homestead. As to this, judgment was rendered for Petitioner O’Neil. In all other respects the judgment of the trial court affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals is unaffected.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.