them to the jury. Accordingly, we now address whether there were other grounds for the trial court to disregard the jury’s findings. B. Brown’s Authority In his first point of error, Hoggett contends the trial court erred in disregarding the jury’s answer to question one that Brown was not a director of Telescan on February 10, 1986, the date upon which Telescan’s board of directors approved the merger plan arid directed a vote on the plan by the shareholders. Because the merger plan was approved by only a two-director majority consisting of Brown and Carlin, the jury’s answer to question one bears directly on the validity of the merger. See Tex. Bus. CORP. Act Ann. art. 5.01B (Vernon 1980) (“the board of directors of 52 S.W.2d 292, 293 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio 1961, no writ) (<HOLDING>). In light of these cases, we see no reason why
holding that an express waiver of the right to appeal the sentence was invalid because the trial court had failed properly to advise the defendant and that the defendant therefore did not waive his right to appeal the legality of his sentence holding that ousted directors of marketing association who continually protested the legality of special shareholders meeting called to elect new directors did not waive their complaint holding appellant did not waive right to article 3823 instruction in failing to object to introduction of evidence when he raised a fact issue regarding the legality of the seizure of the cocaine holding that defendant did not waive special appearance holding that defendant did not waive his special appearance by filing a motion for new trial subject to the special appearance