Skip to main content

Briscoe v. Goodmark Corp.

Citations

  • 102 S.W.3d 714
  • 46 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 534
  • 2003 Tex. LEXIS 33
  • 2003 WL 1561448

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • recognizing that application of “law of the case” doctrine lies within the discretion of the court, depending upon the circumstances surrounding each case
  • noting that under law-of-the-case doctrine, court of appeals “ordinarily bound by its initial decision” in subsequent appeals for same case
  • referring to “our oft-repeated position that a party should not lose the right to appeal because of an ‘overly technical’ application of the law”
  • defining law of the case doctrine and explaining its aim at ‘putting an end to litigation”
  • referring to “our oft‑repeated position that a party should not lose the right to appeal because of an ‘overly technical’ application of the law”
  • “Finding clear error in its first decision, [the court of appeals] had the power to overturn that first decision on the second appeal. . . . Because its first decision was clearly erroneous, the law of the case doctrine did not apply.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Enoch, Phillips, Hecht, Owen, O'Neill, Schneider, Smith, Jefferson, Wainwright

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

246 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Briscoe v. Goodmark Corp.

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.