Critical Path Resources, Inc. v. Richard Cuevas, Individually and on behalf of the Estate of Nicolas Oscar Cuevas, Et Al Appeal from 129th District Court of Harris County (opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Supplemental Majority Opinion filed May 8, 2018. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-16-00036-CV CRITICAL PATH RESOURCES, INC., Appellant V. RICHARD CUEVAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF NICOLAS OSCAR CUEVAS, DANIEL CUEVAS, NICOLAS CUEVAS, MARIA CUEVAS, GUADALUPE TORRES, BLANCA RODRIGUEZ, LUIS DE LOS SANTOS, BLAKE SMITH, AND TAMATHA SMITH, Appellees On Appeal from the 129th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012-21574 SUPPLEMENTAL MAJORITY OPINION On March 29, 2018, we issued our original majority opinion in this case suggesting remittiturs for appellees Daniel Cuevas, Nicolas Cuevas, and Maria Cuevas. We explained that if Daniel, Mr. Cuevas, and Mrs. Cuevas filed this remittitur within twenty days from the date of our original opinion, we would modify the trial court’s judgment accordingly. We suggested the following remittiturs: (1) for Daniel’s future medical damages, a remittitur of $279,342; (2) for Mr. Cuevas’s non-pecuniary damages, a remittitur of $420,000; and (3) for Mrs. Cuevas’s nonpecuniary damages, a remittitur of $360,000. All three appellees timely accepted the suggested remittiturs. Subsequently, the parties submitted an agreed statement (without prejudice to Critical Path’s further appellate rights) regarding the amount of the modified judgment taking into account the accepted remittiturs as well as prejudgment interest. We therefore issue this supplemental majority opinion. In accordance with the original majority opinion, appellees’ timely-filed remittiturs, and the parties’ agreed statement, we modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect (1) Daniel’s total recovery of all damages: $4,637,743.23; (2) Mr. Cuevas’s total recovery of all damages: $152,828.03; and (3) Mrs. Cuevas’s total recovery of all damages: $212,828.03. These amounts include prejudgment interest. We affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified. Our original opinions remain otherwise in effect. /s/ J. Brett Busby Justice Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Busby, and Jewell (Jewell, J., dissenting). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
