Mason v. Our Lady Star of the Sea Catholic Church

How courts have described this case

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

• discussing inadequacy of notice of appellate issues that an appellant filed A four months after appellees = briefing had been completed @
• interpreting former 1986 Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 53(d), 49 Tex. B.J. 556, 573–74 (1986) (since amended)
• refusing presumption allowed by Rule 34.6(c)(4) where appellant sought leave to file her statement of issues almost nine months after it was due and shortly before the case was set for oral argument upon full briefing
• considering the appellant’s complaint regarding jury charge error and observing that “[w]ithout a record, an appellate court is hobbled; it cannot perform its review of the record to assess for itself if error occurred and, if so, to assess whether the error was harmless or reversible”
• considering the appellant’s complaint regarding jury charge error and observing that ―[w]ithout a record, an appellate court is hobbled; it cannot perform its review of the record to assess for itself if error occurred and, if so, to assess whether the error was harmless or reversible‖
• “We also refuse to abandon our responsibility to look to the record for error so that we can independently and objectively assess both the error and its harm.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).