No. 20-5449

Carolyn R. Dawson v. Kevin Pakenham

Lower Court: Texas
Docketed: 2020-08-21
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: appellate-review civil-procedure forcible-detainer no-evidence-motion property-rights summary-judgment texas-law
Key Terms:
DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2020-12-04 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether Texas courts have properly distinguished between motions for no-evidence summary judgment and traditional summary judgment in forcible detainer proceedings

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED There appears to be a split and/or confusion within the courts regarding “Motions” for No-Evidence Summary Judgments Appeals and a Forcible Detainer “Complaint” . Appeal for immediate possession. Texas laws clearly . state that Motions for No-Evidence Summary J udgments differ from the usual Summary Judgments rendered as trial verdicts. The Thirteenth COA review these motions de nova at the Appellate level as seen in;

Docket Entries

2020-12-07
Rehearing DENIED.
2020-11-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/4/2020.
2020-11-02
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2020-10-19
Petition DENIED.
2020-10-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/16/2020.
2020-07-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 21, 2020)

Attorneys

Carolyn Dawson
Carolyn R. Dawson — Petitioner
Carolyn R. Dawson — Petitioner
Kevin Pakenham, et al.
Abel ManjiHird, Chu, Lawji and Manji P.C., Respondent
Abel ManjiHird, Chu, Lawji and Manji P.C., Respondent