Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas · 1988 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureContractssettlementmandatedismissaljoint motionmandatedismissal

Facts

Judgment was entered in the 151st District Court of Harris County, Texas, in favor of Pennzoil Company on December 10, 1985. This court modified and affirmed that judgment on February 12, 1987, and the Texas Supreme Court refused Texaco's application for writ of error on November 2, 1987. Texaco had filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, and later filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which was dismissed by agreement of the parties. In the joint motion before this court, the parties represented that the judgment had been fully and finally settled, that the bankruptcy court had approved the settlement, and that no matters relating to the judgment remained open or pending.

Issue

Whether, after the parties represented that the judgment had been fully and finally settled and that no further matters remained open or pending, the court should decline to issue mandate on its judgment and dismiss all further action in the case.

Rule

When the parties jointly represent that the judgment has been fully and finally settled, that any necessary bankruptcy approval has been obtained, and that no further court action relating to the judgment remains to be taken, the court may grant the joint motion not to issue mandate and dismiss the cause.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Court of Appeals in Dallas has already issued a judgment modifying and affirming a trial court's money judgment between Nora Bennett and Red Clay Logistics. Afterward, both parties file a joint motion stating that they have fully and finally settled the judgment, no issues relating to that judgment remain open or pending, and no bankruptcy case is involved.

How should the appellate court most likely respond under the governing order?

Explanation. The governing rule is narrow: when the parties jointly represent that the judgment has been fully and finally settled and that no further court action relating to the judgment remains, the appellate court may grant the motion not to issue mandate and dismiss the cause. The order does not require issuance of mandate once those representations are made. (Derived from Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co. (n.d.).)