theft claim in Texas

2011See id. § 134.005(b) (providing “[e]aeh person who prevails in a suit under this chapter shall be awarded court costs and reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees”); see also Air Routing Int’l Corp. (Canada) v. Britannia Airways, Ltd., 150 S.W.3d 682, 686 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (recognizing “unusual” nature of Texas Theft Act in that it requires the court to award attorney’s fees to a party who successfully defends against a Theft Act claim without any finding that the theft claim is groundless, frivolous, or brought in bad faith).

2011See id. § 134.005(b) (providing “[e]ach person who prevails in a suit under this chapter shall be awarded court costs and reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees”); see also Air Routing Int’l Corp. (Canada) v. Britannia Airways, Ltd., 150 S.W.3d 682, 686 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (recognizing “unusual” nature of Texas Theft Act in that it requires the court to award attorney’s fees to a party who successfully defends against a Theft Act claim without any finding that the theft claim is groundless, frivolous, or brought in bad faith).

2021See Gonyea v. Scott, 541 S.W.3d 238, 248 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, pet. denied); TEX.

2021The time expended is not a reasonable fee for necessary services relating to Bay’s prosecution of the theft claim.” The Texas Supreme Court has instructed that “the lodestar analysis [should] apply to any situation in which an objective calculation of reasonable hours worked times a reasonable rate can be employed.” Rohrmoos Venture v. UTSW DVA Healthcare, LLP, 578 S.W.3d 469, 498 (Tex. 2019). “[T]the fact finder’s starting point for calculating an attorney’s fee award is determining the reasonable hours worked multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, and the fee claimant bears the burden of pr

2021The time expended is not a reasonable fee for necessary services relating to Bay’s prosecution of the theft claim.” The Texas Supreme Court has instructed that “the lodestar analysis [should] apply to any situation in which an objective calculation of reasonable hours worked times a reasonable rate can be employed.” Rohrmoos Venture v. UTSW DVA Healthcare, LLP, 578 S.W.3d 469, 498 (Tex. 2019). “[T]the fact finder’s starting point for calculating an attorney’s fee award is determining the reasonable hours worked multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, and the fee claimant bears the burden of pr

2018See El Apple I, Ltd. v. Olivas, 370 S.W.3d 757, 764 (Tex. 2012); Arthur Anderson & Co. v. Perry Equip.

2013See Hamilton v. Wilson, 249 S.W.3d 425, 426 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam) (“The trial court must grant the [no-evidence] motion unless the respondent produces summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact.”).

2013Ehrhardt, 334 S.W.3d at 853 ; Baker v. State, 986 S.W.2d 271, 274 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1998, pet. ref’d).

2010See Tony Gullo Motors v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2006).

2006See Minix, 162 S.W.3d at 639 .

1996In analyzing whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the defendant was not entitled to the theft instruction, Judge Miller, writing for the majority, stated: In Rousseau v. State, this Court recently refined the Royster [v. State, 622 S.W.2d 442, 446 (Tex.Crim.App.1981) ] test that is to be used when determining whether a defendant is entitled to an instruction on a lesser included offense. 855 S.W.2d 666 (Tex.Crim.App.1993).

1985In light of appellant’s timely request for a theft instruction and his sentence of twenty-five years, under Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), the requisite harm is clearly demonstrated. 1 Therefore, the trial court committed reversible error by not instructing the jury on the lesser included offense of theft.