Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type
Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

Go Leasing, Inc. v. Groos National Bank – Case Brief Summary (Texas)

In Go Leasing, Inc. v. Groos National Bank, 628 S.W.2d 143, 144 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1982, no writ), a party obtaining a judgment filed a motion nunc pro tunc which was later recognized--there by the appellate court--to have been a motion to modify the judgment. Id. at 144.

The trial court granted the motion within 30 days of the judgment, and the appellate court--while noting that "considerations of professionalism should prompt counsel to make an effort to notify other interested parties that he intends to ask the court to modify the judgment"--held that the judgment was valid because no notice had been required for a motion to modify or for a ruling thereon at any time within 30 days of the final judgment. Id. at 144, 144 n.2.