Phillip Rodriguez v. H.E. Butt Grocery Company, L.P., Jointly and Severally William Tate, Jointly and Severally and as Employee of H.E. Butt Grocery Company Stephen Martinez, Jointly and Severally and as Employee of H.E. Butt Grocery Company Meredith Reid, as Employee of H.E. Butt Grocery Company, Jointly and Severally Debra Ann Godoy, as Employee of H.E. Butt Grocery Company, Jointly and Severally
Case Details
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- summary judgment
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
The trial court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the employee's bill of review petition, and the appellate court affirmed. The court found the employee's loss of consortium claim was not meritorious under Texas law and the employee failed to meet the requirements for bill of review relief.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
More Rulings in This Case
Other orders and opinions in Phillip Rodriguez v. H.E. Butt Grocery Company, L.P., Jointly and Severally William Tate, Jointly and Severally and as Employee of H.E. Butt Grocery Company Stephen Martinez, Jointly and Severally and as Employee of H.E. Butt Grocery Company Meredith Reid, as Employee of H.E. Butt Grocery Company, Jointly and Severally Debra Ann Godoy, as Employee of H.E. Butt Grocery Company, Jointly and Severally from the same court.
Similar Rulings
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.