I believe the memorandum opinions in question are in conformance with 47.4. I would not call Judge Vance's concern's trivial, however. I have had serious issues and issues of first impression that were disposed of im similar memorandum opinions, however, which I believe does run afoul of 47.4. It seems to me, though, that most of the opinions I see are ignoring the memo opinion rule. We haven't had a transfer to Waco recently, so I haven't received opinions from that court.
Posts: 2138 | Location: McKinney, Texas, USA | Registered: February 15, 2001
If you are wondering just how simple a "memorandum opinion" can become:
"Mobil Oil Corporation appeals from the grant of a summary judgment on its counterclaim seeking indemnity from Ona Mae Powers under a Release and Indemnity Agreement she signed in 1994. Finding that the trial court did not err in granting the summary judgment, we affirm. DeWitt County Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Parks, 1 S.W.3d 96, 100 (Tex. 1999) (interpret the contract as a matter of law); Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548‑49 (Tex. 1985) (standard of review); Rucker v. Bank One, 36 S.W.3d 649, 652-53 (Tex. App.-Waco 2000, pet. denied) (review is de novo). PER CURIAM"
If this is all it takes to "address" the issues raised upon appeal as required by Rule 47.1, one wonders why the courts have labored so hard in the past.
Is no one else even willing to participate in the poll? (Its anonymous)
Regardless of how you voted, the answer is YES, an opinion can be too short and sweet. Gonzalez, No. 03-0939 (Tex. 06/09/06). Will be interesting to see how the intermediate courts respond, since they were merely trying to save some time needed to process the cases they saw as more important.
