909_S_W_2d_105 Straus

909_S_W_2d_105 Straus - 109NST Print Request LEXSEE Time of...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
109NST Print Request: LEXSEE Time of Request: February 28, 2003 09:49 AM EST Number of Lines: 139 Job Number: 1822:0:82168772 Client ID/Project Name: me Research Information: Lexsee 909 S.W.2d 105 at 108 Send to: BAIN, BRUCE 1535 WEST LOOP S FL 4 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77027-9509
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
LEXSEE 909 S.W.2d 105 at 108 ROBERT D. STRAUS, JR., Appellant v. KIRBY COURT CORPORATION, Appellee No. 14-94-00430-CV COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, FOURTEENTH DISTRICT, HOUSTON 909 S.W.2d 105; 1995 Tex. App. LEXIS 2134 August 31, 1995, Rendered August 31, 1995, Filed PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] On Appeal from the 151st District Court. Harris County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. 89-50728. Garcia Carolyn Judge. DISPOSITION: Affirmed COUNSEL: J. Murphy Harmon, Kathleen Hopkins Alsina of Houston, TX, for appellant. Terry M. Womac, Gene F., Creely, II, Lydia S. Zinkhan of Houston, TX, for appellee. JUDGES: Panel consists of Chief Justice Murphy, and Justices Anderson, and Hudson. OPINIONBY: J. HARVEY HUDSON OPINION: [*107] OPINION Appellant, Robert D. Straus ("Straus") sued his landlord, Kirby Court Corporation ("Kirby Court") for wrongful eviction and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Kirby Court brought a third-party action against U.S. Movers, Inc. Straus appeals from a directed verdict in favor of Kirby Court and U.S. Movers. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. In reviewing the propriety of a directed verdict, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict has been directed and disregards all evidence to the contrary. Qantel Business Systems, Inc. v. Custom Controls Co., 761 S.W.2d 302, 303 (Tex. 1988). After reviewing the evidence in this light, we must determine whether any evidence of probative value exists that raises fact questions on the material issues presented at trial. Henderson v. Travelers Ins. Co., 544 S.W.2d 649, 650 (Tex. 1976); Stinger v. Stewart & Stevenson Services, Inc. 830 S.W.2d 715, 718 [**2] (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, writ denied). Viewed in the light most favorable to Straus, the record demonstrates that in 1971, Straus rented an apartment from Kirby Court. Beginning in 1972, Straus occupied the apartment on a month-to-month basis. Straus was frequently late in paying his rent, and he had a longstanding dispute with Kirby Court regarding its alleged failure to make various repairs. Late in 1988, Kirby Court prepared a new lease. The new lease was presented to Straus in November of 1988, but he refused to sign it. On December 10, 1988, Kirby Court sent a letter to Straus requesting he relinquish possession of the premises. Straus did not relinquish possession of the apartment, but he did execute the new lease in February of 1989. Straus continued to make late rent payments. Six months
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2011 for the course EMGT 5130 taught by Professor Jeong during the Fall '11 term at UH Clear Lake.

Page1 / 6

909_S_W_2d_105 Straus - 109NST Print Request LEXSEE Time of...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online