Case Summary: Cora Zimmerman v. Texaco, Inc., No. B-72 (Sup. Ct. Tex. Mar. 22, 1967)

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas from the District Court of Gaines County (Truett Smith, J.). Petitioner Cora Zimmerman sued Texaco, Inc.; the trial court entered a judgment decreeing that the plaintiff-petitioner take nothing by her suit against the defendants. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed that portion of the trial court's judgment. Petitioner filed an application for writ of error to the Supreme Court of Texas. The Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion on March 22, 1967 (rehearing denied April 19, 1967). Counsel of record included H. W. Sanders for petitioner and W. B. Browder, Jr. and W. N. Sands for respondent. The opinion notes that Justice Walker did not sit on the decision.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the District Court of Gaines County had jurisdiction of the cause under the allegations contained in the plaintiff-petitioner's first amended original petition.
2. Whether the petitioner’s application for writ of error disclosed a reversible error in the Court of Civil Appeals' action in affirming the trial court's judgment decreeing that the plaintiff take nothing by her suit.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis is concise and comprises two principal determinations stated in the per curiam opinion:

• The Court concluded that the District Court of Gaines County had jurisdiction of the cause based on the allegations contained in the plaintiff-petitioner's first amended original petition. The opinion states this conclusion directly without further elaboration in the text provided.
• The Court further concluded that the petitioner's application for writ of error did not disclose any reversible error in the Court of Civil Appeals' decision affirming the trial court's judgment that the plaintiff take nothing. On that basis the Supreme Court refused the application for writ of error.

Holding and Implications

The application for writ of error is refused; no reversible error.

Direct consequences: the Court affirmed that the District Court had proper jurisdiction under the petitioner's amended pleading and refused the petitioner's application for writ of error, effectively leaving in place the Court of Civil Appeals' affirmation of the trial court's judgment that the plaintiff take nothing. The opinion does not discuss broader legal implications or establish new precedent beyond the disposition of this application.