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.
22 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Green International, Inc. v. Solisgreen2 sentences2010See Green Intern., Inc., 951 S.W.2d at 387 . 2010See Green Intern., Inc., 951 S.W.2d at 387 . | 3 | 3 |
ADT Security Services, Inc. v. Van Peterson Fine Jewelersgreen2 sentences2019In ADT, the contract’s limitation-of-liability clause provided that a customer would “look exclusively to customer’s insurer to recover for injuries or damage.” Id. 2016Servs., Inc. v. Van Peterson Fine Jewelers, 390 S.W.3d 603, 607 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.). | 1 | 2 |
Wade v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Companygreen2 sentences1988Wade v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, 352 S.W.2d 460 (Tex.Civ.App.— Austin 1961, no writ); see also Helms v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 794 F.2d 188 (5th Cir.1986); Calarco v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 725 S.W.2d 304 (Tex.App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.). 1988Wade v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, 352 S.W.2d 460 (Tex.Civ. | 1 | 2 |
Bombardier Aerospace Corp. v. Spep Aircraft Holdings, LLCgreen2 sentences2025Id. at 232 ; see also id. at 233 (“[T]he parties bargained to limit punitive damages, and we must hold them to that bargain.”). 2025Id. at 232 ; see also id. at 233 (“[T]he parties bargained to limit punitive damages, and we must hold them to that bargain.”). | 1 | 1 |
Continental Holdings, Ltd. v. Leahygreen2 sentences2024See id. 2024Continental Holdings, 132 S.W.3d at 477 . | 1 | 1 |
Kay Lynn Maynard F/K/A Kay Lynn Maynard Booth v. William Boothgreen1 sentence2021See Maynard, 421 S.W.3d at 183– 84. | 1 | 1 |
Virginia Power Energy Marketing, Inc. v. Apache Corp.green1 sentence2021See Va. Power Energy Mktg., Inc. v. Apache Corp., 297 S.W.3d 397 , 403–04 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
ERI Consulting Engineers, Inc. v. Swinneagreen1 sentence2019See generally Swinnea, 318 S.W.3d at 870 (allowing forfeiture as an equitable remedy for breach of fiduciary duty in addition to actual damages for fraud and breach of contract, but declining to evaluate the award in light of rules applicable to punitive damages). | 1 | 1 |
Helena Chemical Co. v. Wilkinsgreen1 sentence2018Co. v. Watkins, 47 S.W.3d 486, 505 (Tex. 2001), this theory was not submitted to the jury. | 1 | 1 |
Stack v. Richmangreen1 sentence2017The court continued, "A buyer is not bound by an agreement to purchase something 'as is' that he is induced to make because of a fraudulent representation or concealment of information by the seller." Id. ; see also Stack v. Richman , 286 S.W.3d 44 , 50 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, pet. denied) (reversing summary judgment because fact issue existed as to seller's knowledge and representations regarding lot size which could negate enforcement of "as is" clause because of fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment). *305 Similar to an "as is" clause, a limitation-of-liability clause for exemplary da | 1 | 1 |
Parks v. Developers Surety & Indemnity Co.green1 sentence2015Sapphire cites to Parks v. Developers Surety & Indemnity Co., 302 S.W.3d 920, 924 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.) (refusing to consider unconscionability as a defense to contract claim because the defendant failed to plead and assert it in the trial court), and Posey v. Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc., 878 S.W.2d 275, 281 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1994, no writ) (“Because the Poseys failed to assert in the court below that the limitation of liability clause was void, unconscionable or unenforceable, we may not reverse-that portion of the summary judgment on appeal.”). 11 . | 1 | 1 |
Posey v. Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc.green1 sentence2015Sapphire cites to Parks v. Developers Surety & Indemnity Co., 302 S.W.3d 920, 924 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.) (refusing to consider unconscionability as a defense to contract claim because the defendant failed to plead and assert it in the trial court), and Posey v. Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc., 878 S.W.2d 275, 281 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1994, no writ) (“Because the Poseys failed to assert in the court below that the limitation of liability clause was void, unconscionable or unenforceable, we may not reverse-that portion of the summary judgment on appeal.”). 11 . | 1 | 1 |
Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co. v. Swift Energy Co.green1 sentence2014Citing Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co. v. Swift Energy Co., 180 S.W.3d 635, 643 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.), IHR maintains that the language in the limitation of liability clause, “NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY’, indicates that the parties intended for the clause to take precedence over any other conflicting term in the License Agreement. | 1 | 1 |
City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authoritygreen1 sentence1994Id.; see also City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671, 678 (Tex.1979). | 1 | 1 |
Vallance & Co. v. De Andagreen2 sentences1993In the present ease we have a limitation of liability clause that is unlike the above cases and specifically takes into account loss due to negligence as illustrated by the contract’s language that “the provisions of this section shall apply if loss or damage, irrespective of cause or origin, results directly or indirectly to persons or property, from performance or nonperformance of the obligations imposed by this contract, or from negligence, active or otherwise, of APS, its agents, servants, assigns or employees. ” [Emphasis added.] Although the primary case upon which APS relies, Vallance 1993See id. at 588-89 . | 1 | 1 |
Tommy Helms and Ken Helms v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Companygreen1 sentence1988Wade v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, 352 S.W.2d 460 (Tex.Civ.App.— Austin 1961, no writ); see also Helms v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 794 F.2d 188 (5th Cir.1986); Calarco v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 725 S.W.2d 304 (Tex.App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 1 | 1 |
Allright, Inc. v. Elledgegreen2 sentences1988While courts may refuse to enforce limitation of liability clauses where there is such a disparity of bargaining power that the contract is one of adhesion, Allright, Inc. v. Elledge, 515 S.W.2d 266 (Tex.1974), this contractual provision would not serve to limit Southwestern Bell's damages for its negligent conduct. 1988Allright, Inc. v. Elledge, 515 S.W.2d at 267, 268 . | 1 | 1 |
Rinehart v. Sonitrol of Dallas, Inc.green2 sentences1985Rinehart v. Sonitrol of Dallas, 620 S.W.2d 660, 663 (Tex. Civ.App.—Dallas 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.); see also Reuben H. 1985Rinehart v. Sonitrol of Dallas, 620 S.W.2d 660, 663 (Tex. Civ.App.—Dallas 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e.); see also Reuben H. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
NOWZARADAN v. Ryansgreen1 sentence2023But cf. Nowzaradan v. Ryans, 347 S.W.3d 734, 739 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (noting that “excepting certain worker’s compensation cases, it is well established that a finding of ordinary negligence is prerequisite to a finding of gross negligence” and holding that negligence and gross negligence are not separable causes of action but are inextricably intertwined). 22 the tariff’s limitation-of-liability bar did not compel the conclusion that gross- negligence claims are also barred on the theory that they do not exist independently of an underlying negligence claim, althoug | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mickens v. Longhorn DFW Moving, Inc.
green
1 sentence2017Id. at 878 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Jefferson Associates, Ltd.
green
2 sentences2017Bombardier cites to cases that generally hold limitations of liability clauses are enforceable; however, none of the cases involve fraud by nondisclosure. 12 Appellees rely on Prudential Insurance Co. v. Jefferson Associates, Ltd. , 896 S.W.2d 156 (Tex. 1995) to support their argument a party cannot enforce a limitation-of-liability clause in a contract procured by fraud. 2017The court continued, "A buyer is not bound by an agreement to purchase something 'as is' that he is induced to make because of a fraudulent representation or concealment of information by the seller." Id. ; see also Stack v. Richman , 286 S.W.3d 44 , 50 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, pet. denied) (reversing summary judgment because fact issue existed as to seller's knowledge and representations regarding lot size which could negate enforcement of "as is" clause because of fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment). *305 Similar to an "as is" clause, a limitation-of-liability clause for exemplary da | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Arthur's Garage, Inc. v. Racal-Chubb Security Systems, Inc.
green
1 sentence2016Arthur’s Garage, Inc., 997 S.W.2d at 812 (citing Sw. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Browning Oil Co., Inc. v. Luecke
green
1 sentence2008The forms attached to Dresser = s motion for summary judgment were from the 1994-95 time period. [8] In support of its arguments, Equistar cites Browning Oil Co. v. Luecke , 38 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. App. C Austin 2000, pet. denied), in which the court relied upon Rule 2 in remanding for a new trial solely on damages. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
FDP Corp. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
green
1 sentence1995The court of appeals, FDP Corp. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 749 S.W.2d 569 (Tex.App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1988), reversed the trial court, holding a breach of warranty was actionable under the DTPA, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of breach of warranty and producing cause, the jury’s failure to find damages was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, and the limitation of liability clause could not limit a recovery for breach of warranty under the DTPA. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. FDP Corp.
green
1 sentence1994Appellees concede that the limitation clause is not effective to limit damages in a DTPA action except one brought under the breach of warranty provision. 5 See FDP Corp., 811 S.W.2d at 576-77 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Calarco v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
green
1 sentence1988Wade v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, 352 S.W.2d 460 (Tex.Civ.App.— Austin 1961, no writ); see also Helms v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 794 F.2d 188 (5th Cir.1986); Calarco v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 725 S.W.2d 304 (Tex.App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
White v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences1988The present case was initiated under pleadings which included allegations of DTPA violations; however, no issues were submitted on that basis and the trial court in its judgment specifically excludes any DTPA violations. 5 The question of the validity of a limitation clause of this nature in the contract was raised in White v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 651 S.W.2d 260 (Tex.1983), a case which involved the telephone company’s incorrect listing of a florist’s telephone number in the Yellow Pages. 1988The present case was initiated under pleadings which included allegations of DTPA violations; however, no issues were submitted on that basis and the trial court in its judgment specifically excludes any DTPA violations. [5] The question of the validity of a limitation clause of this nature in the contract was raised in White v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 651 S.W.2d 260 (Tex.1983), a case which involved the telephone company's incorrect listing of a florist's telephone number in the Yellow Pages. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Reuben H. Donnelley Corp. v. McKinnon
green
2 sentences1988Donnelley Corp. v. McKinnon, 688 S.W.2d 612 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.), which held a similar limitation of liability clause in a Yellow Pages advertisement contract unenforceable because the plaintiff's action was based on negligence and the defendant could not limit its liability for negligence. 688 S.W.2d at 616 . 1988Donnelley Corp. v. McKinnon, 688 S.W.2d 612 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.), which held a similar limitation of liability clause in a Yellow Pages advertisement contract unenforceable because the plaintiff's action was based on negligence and the defendant could not limit its liability for negligence. 688 S.W.2d at 616 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
G-W-L, Inc. v. Robichaux
green
2 sentences1985G-W-L, Inc. v. Robichaux, 643 S.W.2d 392 (Tex. 1982). 1985G-W-L, Inc. v. Robichaux, 643 S.W.2d 392 (Tex. 1982). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Southwestern Fire and Casualty Company v. Atkins
green
1 sentence1978The ambiguity on which the court relied in Atkins resulted from the apparent inconsistency between the limitation of liability clause in the medical payments endorsement and the separability clause (applicable when more than two cars are insured by the same policy) found in the conditions section of the basic policy. 346 S.W.2d 892 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston 1961, no writ). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.