Burleson State Bank v. Burt Plunkett, et al.--Appeal from 249th District Court of Johnson County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-98-036-CV

BURLESON STATE BANK,

Appellant

v.

BURT PLUNKETT, ET AL.,

Appellees

From the 249th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court # 249-86-96

CONCURRING OPINION

I concur in the result. I write to request that the Supreme Court clarify the standard of review for legal sufficiency issues.

At least since Garza v. Alviar, the Court has more or less consistently stated the rule for review of legal sufficiency challenges in ordinary cases as follows: In deciding that question, the appellate court must consider only the evidence and the inferences tending to support the finding and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Garza v. Alviar, 395 S.W.2d 821, 823 (Tex. 1965). Apparently, the bad-faith litigation has caused the standard to become muddled. See, e.g., Provident American Ins. Co. v. Castaneda, 988 S.W.2d 189, 205-07 (Tex. 1998) (Gonzalez, J., dissenting). The intermediate courts of appeals need to know when to apply the traditional Garza enunciation of the rule and when to apply the version of the standard requiring consideration of all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, indulging every inference in that party s favor, as the majority does in this case, citing Associated Indem. Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc., 964 S.W.2d 276, 285-86 (Tex. 1998), which is a bad-faith case.

BILL VANCE

Justice

Concurring opinion delivered and filed August 30, 2000

Publish