Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

474 S.W.2d 508

Riedel v. Kerlick

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided November 24, 1971

Court of Appeals of Texas · decided 1971-11-24

Relies on City of Houston v. Lakewood Estates, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1971-11-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 1994

7 state decisions

40197119801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

¶2Appellees have filed their motion for rehearing complaining principally, that certain factual statements relative to the intent of the testators were considered by this Court in arriving at its opinion. Ap-pellees argue that these facts are not supported by any pleadings and they are not substantiated by any facts proved in the evidence. The appellees admit that such statements were taken from appellant’s brief. These statements were not challenged in any way by appellees in their reply brief.

¶3Rule 419 Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides that any statement made by an appellant in his original brief as to the facts or the record may be accepted by the court as correct unless the same has been challenged by the opposing party. Since no challenge was made by appellees, this court accepts as correct the factual statements made by appellant in her brief. City of Houston v. Lakewood Estates, Inc., *516429 S.W.2d 938 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston 1st 1968, n. r. e.); Rule 419 T.R.C.P.

¶4We have carefully considered appellees’ motion for rehearing and the authorities cited therein. The motion for rehearing is overruled.

¶5SHARPE, J., not participating.

/474/sw2d/508 · .json · Public domain