Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
39 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Latham v. Castillogreen2 sentences2014See Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 17.50(a) (requiring that defendant’s act constitute a producing cause of economic or mental anguish damages); Latham v. Castillo, 972 S.W.2d 66, 69 (Tex.1998) (stating elements of claim for unconscionable conduct recovery under DTPA, including damages pursuant to section 17.50(a)); see also Haden, 332 S.W.3d at 519 . 2009Code Ann. § 17.50 (a) (Vernon 2002) (requiring that defendant’s act constitute producing cause of economic or mental anguish); Latham v. Castillo, 972 S.W.2d 66, 69 (Tex.1998) (stating elements of claim for unconscionable conduct recovery under DTPA, including damages pursuant to section 17.50(a)(3)). | 5 | 5 |
Riverside National Bank v. Lewisgreen2 sentences1990Section 17.45(4) does nothing more than describe the class of persons who can bring a suit for treble damages under section 17.50. 4 Riverside National Bank v. Lewis, [ 603 S.W.2d 169, 173 (Tex.1980)]. 1981In Riverside National Bank v. Lewis, 603 S.W.2d 169, 173 (Tex.1980), we recognized that a person must qualify as a consumer as that term is defined in section 17.45(4) to maintain a private cause of action for treble damages under section 17.50 of the Act. | 3 | 5 |
Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Lowgreen2 sentences2014“In a DTPA claim, ‘[w]ithout an actual-damages recovery, a party is not entitled to an attorney’s fee recovery.’ ” Haden, 332 S.W.3d at 519 (quoting Gulf States Util. v. Low, 79 S.W.3d 561, 567 (Tex.2002)). 2009In a DTPA claim, “[w]ithout an actual-damages recovery, a party is not entitled to an attorney’s fee recovery.” Gulf States Util. v. Low, 79 S.W.3d 561, 567 (Tex.2002). | 3 | 3 |
Horta v. Tennisongreen2 sentences2006Although the supreme court concluded that the phrase "may obtain" was mandatory in the context of an award of treble damages under section 17.50(b), that holding has since been abrogated by statutory amendment as recognized in Horta v. Tennison , 671 S.W.2d 720, 724 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, no writ). 2006Although the supreme court concluded that the phrase “may obtain” was mandatory in the context of an award of treble damages under section 17.50(b), that holding has since been abrogated by statutory amendment as recognized in Horta v. Tennison, 671 S.W.2d 720, 724 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, no writ). | 3 | 3 |
Brown v. American Transfer & Storage Co.green2 sentences1990See American Transfer and Storage Co. v. Brown, 584 S.W.2d 284 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1979, rev’d on other grounds, 601 S.W.2d 931 ), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015 , 101 S.Ct. 575 , 66 L.Ed.2d 474 (1980). 1988Brown v. American Transfer & Storage Co., 601 S.W.2d. 931 (Tex.1980), cert. denied 449 U.S. 1015 , 101 S.Ct. 575 , 66 L.Ed.2d 474 (1980) (actual damages under Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 17.50 (1987); Investors, Inc. v. Hadley, 738 S.W.2d. 737 (Tex.App.1987, writ denied) (actual damages under § 17.50); Frank B. | 2 | 3 |
In Re Discount Rental, Inc.green2 sentences2011See In re Discount Rental, Inc. , 216 S.W.3d 831, 832 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam) (“Because the default judgment was taken without proper service, it was void.”); Lytle v. Cunningham , 261 S.W.3d 837, 840 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (“When the attempted service of process is invalid, the trial court acquires no personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and the default judgment is void.”); see also In re Sheppard , 193 S.W.3d 181 , 189 & n.8 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (recognizing trial court does not have jurisdiction until service has been achieved or defendant waives ser 2011See In re Discount Rental, Inc., 216 S.W.3d 831, 832 (Tex.2007) (per curiam) (“Because the default judgment was taken without proper service, it was void.”); Lytle v. Cunningham, 261 S.W.3d 837, 840 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.) (‘When the attempted service of process is invalid, the trial court acquires no personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and the default judgment is void.”); see also In re Sheppard, 193 S.W.3d 181 , 189 & n. 8 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (recognizing trial court does not have jurisdiction until service has been achieved or defendant waives service | 2 | 2 |
Lytle v. Cunninghamgreen2 sentences2011See In re Discount Rental, Inc. , 216 S.W.3d 831, 832 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam) (“Because the default judgment was taken without proper service, it was void.”); Lytle v. Cunningham , 261 S.W.3d 837, 840 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (“When the attempted service of process is invalid, the trial court acquires no personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and the default judgment is void.”); see also In re Sheppard , 193 S.W.3d 181 , 189 & n.8 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (recognizing trial court does not have jurisdiction until service has been achieved or defendant waives ser 2011See In re Discount Rental, Inc., 216 S.W.3d 831, 832 (Tex.2007) (per curiam) (“Because the default judgment was taken without proper service, it was void.”); Lytle v. Cunningham, 261 S.W.3d 837, 840 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.) (‘When the attempted service of process is invalid, the trial court acquires no personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and the default judgment is void.”); see also In re Sheppard, 193 S.W.3d 181 , 189 & n. 8 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (recognizing trial court does not have jurisdiction until service has been achieved or defendant waives service | 2 | 2 |
Cotton v. Cottongreen2 sentences2011See In re Discount Rental, Inc. , 216 S.W.3d 831, 832 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam) (“Because the default judgment was taken without proper service, it was void.”); Lytle v. Cunningham , 261 S.W.3d 837, 840 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (“When the attempted service of process is invalid, the trial court acquires no personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and the default judgment is void.”); see also In re Sheppard , 193 S.W.3d 181 , 189 & n.8 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (recognizing trial court does not have jurisdiction until service has been achieved or defendant waives ser 2011See In re Discount Rental, Inc., 216 S.W.3d 831, 832 (Tex.2007) (per curiam) (“Because the default judgment was taken without proper service, it was void.”); Lytle v. Cunningham, 261 S.W.3d 837, 840 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.) (‘When the attempted service of process is invalid, the trial court acquires no personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and the default judgment is void.”); see also In re Sheppard, 193 S.W.3d 181 , 189 & n. 8 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (recognizing trial court does not have jurisdiction until service has been achieved or defendant waives service | 2 | 2 |
In Re Sheppardgreen2 sentences2011See In re Discount Rental, Inc. , 216 S.W.3d 831, 832 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam) (“Because the default judgment was taken without proper service, it was void.”); Lytle v. Cunningham , 261 S.W.3d 837, 840 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (“When the attempted service of process is invalid, the trial court acquires no personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and the default judgment is void.”); see also In re Sheppard , 193 S.W.3d 181 , 189 & n.8 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (recognizing trial court does not have jurisdiction until service has been achieved or defendant waives ser 2011See In re Discount Rental, Inc., 216 S.W.3d 831, 832 (Tex.2007) (per curiam) (“Because the default judgment was taken without proper service, it was void.”); Lytle v. Cunningham, 261 S.W.3d 837, 840 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.) (‘When the attempted service of process is invalid, the trial court acquires no personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and the default judgment is void.”); see also In re Sheppard, 193 S.W.3d 181 , 189 & n. 8 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (recognizing trial court does not have jurisdiction until service has been achieved or defendant waives service | 2 | 2 |
Abetter Trucking Co. v. Arizpegreen2 sentences2007Code Ann. § 17.50 (a) (Vernon Supp. 2006-2007) (requiring that defendant's act constitute producing cause of economic or mental anguish damages ); Latham v. Castillo , 972 S.W.2d 66, 69 (Tex. 1998) (stating elements of claim for unconscionable conduct recovery under DTPA, including damages pursuant to section 17.50(a)(3); Wright v. Christian & Smith , 950 S.W.2d 411, 412 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no writ) (stating elements of breach-of-contract claim, including damages arising from breach); De Santis v. Wackenhut Corp. , 793 S.W.2d 670, 688 (Tex. 1990) (stating elements of fraud cl 2007See Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 17.50(a) (Vernon Supp.2006-2007) (requiring that defendant’s act constitute producing cause of economic or mental anguish damages); La-tham v. Castillo, 972 S.W.2d 66, 69 (Tex.1998) (stating elements of claim for unconscionable conduct recovery under DTPA, including damages pursuant to section 17.50(a)(3)); Wright v. Christian & Smith, 950 S.W.2d 411, 412 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no writ) (stating elements of breach-of-contract claim, including damages arising from breach); De Santis v. Wackenhut Corp., 793 S.W.2d 670, 688 (Tex.1990) (stating elements | 2 | 2 |
Wright v. Christian & Smithgreen2 sentences2007Code Ann. § 17.50 (a) (Vernon Supp. 2006-2007) (requiring that defendant's act constitute producing cause of economic or mental anguish damages ); Latham v. Castillo , 972 S.W.2d 66, 69 (Tex. 1998) (stating elements of claim for unconscionable conduct recovery under DTPA, including damages pursuant to section 17.50(a)(3); Wright v. Christian & Smith , 950 S.W.2d 411, 412 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no writ) (stating elements of breach-of-contract claim, including damages arising from breach); De Santis v. Wackenhut Corp. , 793 S.W.2d 670, 688 (Tex. 1990) (stating elements of fraud cl 2007See Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 17.50(a) (Vernon Supp.2006-2007) (requiring that defendant’s act constitute producing cause of economic or mental anguish damages); La-tham v. Castillo, 972 S.W.2d 66, 69 (Tex.1998) (stating elements of claim for unconscionable conduct recovery under DTPA, including damages pursuant to section 17.50(a)(3)); Wright v. Christian & Smith, 950 S.W.2d 411, 412 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no writ) (stating elements of breach-of-contract claim, including damages arising from breach); De Santis v. Wackenhut Corp., 793 S.W.2d 670, 688 (Tex.1990) (stating elements | 2 | 2 |
DeSantis v. Wackenhut Corp.green2 sentences2007Code Ann. § 17.50 (a) (Vernon Supp. 2006-2007) (requiring that defendant's act constitute producing cause of economic or mental anguish damages ); Latham v. Castillo , 972 S.W.2d 66, 69 (Tex. 1998) (stating elements of claim for unconscionable conduct recovery under DTPA, including damages pursuant to section 17.50(a)(3); Wright v. Christian & Smith , 950 S.W.2d 411, 412 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no writ) (stating elements of breach-of-contract claim, including damages arising from breach); De Santis v. Wackenhut Corp. , 793 S.W.2d 670, 688 (Tex. 1990) (stating elements of fraud cl 2007See Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 17.50(a) (Vernon Supp.2006-2007) (requiring that defendant’s act constitute producing cause of economic or mental anguish damages); La-tham v. Castillo, 972 S.W.2d 66, 69 (Tex.1998) (stating elements of claim for unconscionable conduct recovery under DTPA, including damages pursuant to section 17.50(a)(3)); Wright v. Christian & Smith, 950 S.W.2d 411, 412 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no writ) (stating elements of breach-of-contract claim, including damages arising from breach); De Santis v. Wackenhut Corp., 793 S.W.2d 670, 688 (Tex.1990) (stating elements | 2 | 2 |
Angelo Broadcasting, Inc. v. Satellite Music Network, Inc.green2 sentences2005Code Ann. § 17.50 (Vernon 2002). “[T]his statutory notice [under the DTPA] requirement is designed to afford the opportunity for presuit negotiations and settlement to avoid lengthening and costly litigations.” Angelo Broad., Inc. v. Satellite Music Network, Inc. , 836 S.W.2d 726, 736 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, writ denied). 2005Code Ann. § 17.50 (Vernon 2002). “[T]his statutory notice [under the DTPA] requirement is designed to afford the opportunity for presuit negotiations and settlement to avoid lengthening and costly litigations. ” Angelo Broad., Inc. v. Satellite Music Network, Inc. , 836 S.W.2d 726, 736 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, writ denied). | 2 | 2 |
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Grosgreen2 sentences1992See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Gros , 818 S.W.2d 908, 917 (Tex. App. 1991, no writ). 1992See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Gros, 818 S.W.2d 908, 917 (Tex.App.1991, no writ). | 2 | 2 |
Ferguson v. Bealgreen2 sentences1981To the same effect are Rutherfcrd v. Whataburger, Inc., 601 S.W.2d 441, 444 (Tex. Civ. App.--Dallas 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.), Ferguson v. Beal, 588 S.W.2d 651, 653 (Tex. Civ. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.), Hi-Line Electric Co. v. Travelers Insurance Co., 587 S.W.2d 488, 490 (Tex. Civ. App.--Dallas 1979), writ ref'd n.r.e. per curiam, 593 S.W.2d 953 (1980), and Russell v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 548 S.W.2d 737, 741 (Tex. Civ. App.--Austin 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.). 1981To *539 the same effect are Rutherford v. Whataburger, Inc., 601 S.W.2d 441, 444 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.), Ferguson v. Beal, 588 S.W.2d 651, 653 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.), Hi-Line Electric Co. v. Travelers Insurance Co., 587 S.W.2d 488, 490 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1979), writ ref’d n.r.e. per curiam, 593 S.W.2d 953 (1980), and Russell v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 548 S.W.2d 737, 741 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 2 | 2 |
Rutherford v. Whataburger, Inc.green2 sentences1981To the same effect are Rutherfcrd v. Whataburger, Inc., 601 S.W.2d 441, 444 (Tex. Civ. App.--Dallas 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.), Ferguson v. Beal, 588 S.W.2d 651, 653 (Tex. Civ. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.), Hi-Line Electric Co. v. Travelers Insurance Co., 587 S.W.2d 488, 490 (Tex. Civ. App.--Dallas 1979), writ ref'd n.r.e. per curiam, 593 S.W.2d 953 (1980), and Russell v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 548 S.W.2d 737, 741 (Tex. Civ. App.--Austin 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.). 1981To *539 the same effect are Rutherford v. Whataburger, Inc., 601 S.W.2d 441, 444 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.), Ferguson v. Beal, 588 S.W.2d 651, 653 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.), Hi-Line Electric Co. v. Travelers Insurance Co., 587 S.W.2d 488, 490 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1979), writ ref’d n.r.e. per curiam, 593 S.W.2d 953 (1980), and Russell v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 548 S.W.2d 737, 741 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 2 | 2 |
Hi-Line Electric Co. v. Travelers Insurance Companiesgreen2 sentences1981To the same effect are Rutherfcrd v. Whataburger, Inc., 601 S.W.2d 441, 444 (Tex. Civ. App.--Dallas 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.), Ferguson v. Beal, 588 S.W.2d 651, 653 (Tex. Civ. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.), Hi-Line Electric Co. v. Travelers Insurance Co., 587 S.W.2d 488, 490 (Tex. Civ. App.--Dallas 1979), writ ref'd n.r.e. per curiam, 593 S.W.2d 953 (1980), and Russell v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 548 S.W.2d 737, 741 (Tex. Civ. App.--Austin 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.). 1981To *539 the same effect are Rutherford v. Whataburger, Inc., 601 S.W.2d 441, 444 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.), Ferguson v. Beal, 588 S.W.2d 651, 653 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.), Hi-Line Electric Co. v. Travelers Insurance Co., 587 S.W.2d 488, 490 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1979), writ ref’d n.r.e. per curiam, 593 S.W.2d 953 (1980), and Russell v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 548 S.W.2d 737, 741 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 2 | 2 |
American Transfer & Storage Co. v. Browngreen2 sentences1988Brown v. American Transfer & Storage Co., 601 S.W.2d. 931 (Tex.1980), cert. denied 449 U.S. 1015 , 101 S.Ct. 575 , 66 L.Ed.2d 474 (1980) (actual damages under Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 17.50 (1987); Investors, Inc. v. Hadley, 738 S.W.2d. 737 (Tex.App.1987, writ denied) (actual damages under § 17.50); Frank B. 1988Brown v. American Transfer & Storage Co., 601 S.W.2d. 931 (Tex.1980), cert. denied 449 U.S. 1015 , 101 S.Ct. 575 , 66 L.Ed.2d 474 (1980) (actual damages under Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 17.50 (1987); Investors, Inc. v. Hadley, 738 S.W.2d. 737 (Tex.App.1987, writ denied) (actual damages under § 17.50); Frank B. | 1 | 2 |
Wilson & Wilson Tax Services Inc. v. Mohammedgreen1 sentence2015Gibbons contends that she produced evidence that these representations were made and that they were 36 See id. (“A product may be unreasonably dangerous because of a defect in marketing, design, or manufacturing.”). 37 See Wilson & Wilson Tax Servs., Inc. v. Mohammed, 131 S.W.3d 231, 242 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (declining to speculate as to the arguments that could have been brought under a counter-point or attempt to make those arguments for the counter-appellants). 19 false, misleading, or deceptive under section 17.46(b)(5) of the DTPA, 38 and she argues that she was | 1 | 1 |
American Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Grinnellgreen1 sentence2015Gibbons contends that she produced evidence that these representations were made and that they were 36 See id. (“A product may be unreasonably dangerous because of a defect in marketing, design, or manufacturing.”). 37 See Wilson & Wilson Tax Servs., Inc. v. Mohammed, 131 S.W.3d 231, 242 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (declining to speculate as to the arguments that could have been brought under a counter-point or attempt to make those arguments for the counter-appellants). 19 false, misleading, or deceptive under section 17.46(b)(5) of the DTPA, 38 and she argues that she was | 1 | 1 |
Haden v. David J. Sacks, P.C.green2 sentences2014“In a DTPA claim, ‘[w]ithout an actual-damages recovery, a party is not entitled to an attorney’s fee recovery.’ ” Haden, 332 S.W.3d at 519 (quoting Gulf States Util. v. Low, 79 S.W.3d 561, 567 (Tex.2002)). 2014See Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 17.50(a) (requiring that defendant’s act constitute a producing cause of economic or mental anguish damages); Latham v. Castillo, 972 S.W.2d 66, 69 (Tex.1998) (stating elements of claim for unconscionable conduct recovery under DTPA, including damages pursuant to section 17.50(a)); see also Haden, 332 S.W.3d at 519 . | 1 | 1 |
Webb v. International Trucking Co., Inc.green1 sentence1998A finding of knowledge is a predicate for awarding additional damages under the DTPA Tex. Bus. & Com.Code § 17.50(b)(4) (Vernon 1987); see Webb v. International Trucking Co. Inc., 909 S.W.2d 220, 223 (Tex.App.—San Antonio, no writ) (discussing award of additional damages based on knowledge finding). | 1 | 1 |
| Sunrizon Homes, Inc. v. Fullergreen | 1 | 1 |
| American Transfer & Storage Co. v. Browngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Smith v. Kinslowgreen | 1 | 1 |
| First National Bank of Irving v. Shockleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Valenciagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brown Foundation Repair & Consulting, Inc. v. McGuiregreen | 1 | 1 |
| Smith v. Baldwingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Young v. DeGueringreen | 1 | 1 |
| Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Lichtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Woods v. Littleton
green
2 sentences1985Woods v. Littleton, 554 S.W.2d 662 (Tex.1977). 1980The provision for trebling actual damages under § 17.50(b)(1) of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act was held to be mandatory by our Supreme Court in Woods v. Littleton (Tex.1977) 554 S.W.2d 662, 671 . | 4 | 1980–1985 |
Pennington v. Singleton
green
2 sentences2005In reaching its conclusion, the court recited that the recovery “increased in a fixed proportion to” the actual loss and noted that “the amount of liability bore some relation to the offense.” See Pennington, 606 S.W.2d at 691 . 2005In reaching its conclusion, the court recited that the recovery "increased in a fixed proportion to" the actual loss and noted that "the amount of liability bore some relation to the offense." See Pennington , 606 S.W.2d at 691 . | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Hi-Line Electric Co. v. Travelers Insurance Companies
green
2 sentences1981To the same effect are Rutherfcrd v. Whataburger, Inc., 601 S.W.2d 441, 444 (Tex. Civ. App.--Dallas 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.), Ferguson v. Beal, 588 S.W.2d 651, 653 (Tex. Civ. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.), Hi-Line Electric Co. v. Travelers Insurance Co., 587 S.W.2d 488, 490 (Tex. Civ. App.--Dallas 1979), writ ref'd n.r.e. per curiam, 593 S.W.2d 953 (1980), and Russell v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 548 S.W.2d 737, 741 (Tex. Civ. App.--Austin 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.). 1981To *539 the same effect are Rutherford v. Whataburger, Inc., 601 S.W.2d 441, 444 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.), Ferguson v. Beal, 588 S.W.2d 651, 653 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.), Hi-Line Electric Co. v. Travelers Insurance Co., 587 S.W.2d 488, 490 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1979), writ ref’d n.r.e. per curiam, 593 S.W.2d 953 (1980), and Russell v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 548 S.W.2d 737, 741 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 2 | 1981–1981 |
Russell v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences1981To the same effect are Rutherfcrd v. Whataburger, Inc., 601 S.W.2d 441, 444 (Tex. Civ. App.--Dallas 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.), Ferguson v. Beal, 588 S.W.2d 651, 653 (Tex. Civ. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.), Hi-Line Electric Co. v. Travelers Insurance Co., 587 S.W.2d 488, 490 (Tex. Civ. App.--Dallas 1979), writ ref'd n.r.e. per curiam, 593 S.W.2d 953 (1980), and Russell v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 548 S.W.2d 737, 741 (Tex. Civ. App.--Austin 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.). 1981To *539 the same effect are Rutherford v. Whataburger, Inc., 601 S.W.2d 441, 444 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.), Ferguson v. Beal, 588 S.W.2d 651, 653 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.), Hi-Line Electric Co. v. Travelers Insurance Co., 587 S.W.2d 488, 490 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1979), writ ref’d n.r.e. per curiam, 593 S.W.2d 953 (1980), and Russell v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 548 S.W.2d 737, 741 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 2 | 1981–1981 |
Cohen v. Arthur Andersen, L.L.P.
green
2 sentences2009TREBLE DAMAGES In their second issue, the Ramseys contend that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding the Sprays four times, rather than three times, the amount of their economic damages under the DTPA. 25 Section 17.50(b)(1) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code permits a maximum award of three times the amount of economic damages for a knowing DTPA violation, providing: 23 … See Ellender, 968 S.W.2d at 928 ; Cohen, 106 S.W.3d at 310 . 24 … See Oyster Creek, 176 S.W.3d at 327 ; CTTI, 164 S.W.3d at 685 n.3; Cohen, 106 S.W.3d at 310 . 25 … The Sprays argue that the Ramseys failed t 2009TREBLE DAMAGES In their second issue, the Ramseys contend that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding the Sprays four times, rather than three times, the amount of their economic damages under the DTPA. 25 Section 17.50(b)(1) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code permits a maximum award of three times the amount of economic damages for a knowing DTPA violation, providing: 23 … See Ellender, 968 S.W.2d at 928 ; Cohen, 106 S.W.3d at 310 . 24 … See Oyster Creek, 176 S.W.3d at 327 ; CTTI, 164 S.W.3d at 685 n.3; Cohen, 106 S.W.3d at 310 . 25 … The Sprays argue that the Ramseys failed t | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Ellender
green
1 sentence2009TREBLE DAMAGES In their second issue, the Ramseys contend that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding the Sprays four times, rather than three times, the amount of their economic damages under the DTPA. 25 Section 17.50(b)(1) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code permits a maximum award of three times the amount of economic damages for a knowing DTPA violation, providing: 23 … See Ellender, 968 S.W.2d at 928 ; Cohen, 106 S.W.3d at 310 . 24 … See Oyster Creek, 176 S.W.3d at 327 ; CTTI, 164 S.W.3d at 685 n.3; Cohen, 106 S.W.3d at 310 . 25 … The Sprays argue that the Ramseys failed t | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Oyster Creek Financial Corp. v. Richwood Investments II, Inc.
green
1 sentence2009TREBLE DAMAGES In their second issue, the Ramseys contend that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding the Sprays four times, rather than three times, the amount of their economic damages under the DTPA. 25 Section 17.50(b)(1) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code permits a maximum award of three times the amount of economic damages for a knowing DTPA violation, providing: 23 … See Ellender, 968 S.W.2d at 928 ; Cohen, 106 S.W.3d at 310 . 24 … See Oyster Creek, 176 S.W.3d at 327 ; CTTI, 164 S.W.3d at 685 n.3; Cohen, 106 S.W.3d at 310 . 25 … The Sprays argue that the Ramseys failed t | 1 | 2009–2009 |
CTTI Priesmeyer, Inc. v. K & O LTD. PARTNERSHIP
red
1 sentence2009TREBLE DAMAGES In their second issue, the Ramseys contend that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding the Sprays four times, rather than three times, the amount of their economic damages under the DTPA. 25 Section 17.50(b)(1) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code permits a maximum award of three times the amount of economic damages for a knowing DTPA violation, providing: 23 … See Ellender, 968 S.W.2d at 928 ; Cohen, 106 S.W.3d at 310 . 24 … See Oyster Creek, 176 S.W.3d at 327 ; CTTI, 164 S.W.3d at 685 n.3; Cohen, 106 S.W.3d at 310 . 25 … The Sprays argue that the Ramseys failed t | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Vail v. Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Kish v. Van Note green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Fleming Manufacturing Co. v. Capitol Brick, Inc. green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Frank B. Hall & Co. v. Beach, Inc. green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Investors, Inc. v. Hadley green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| King v. Ladd green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Terminix International, Inc. v. Lucci green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Publix Theatres Corp. v. Powell green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Mallory v. Custer green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.