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.
15 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
JCW Electronics, Inc. v. Garzagreen2 sentences2024Code Ann. § 2.725 ; Tex. Civ. 5 “The precise nature of the claim is ordinarily identified by examining the damages alleged: when the damages are purely economic, the claim sounds in contract; but a breach of implied warranty claim alleging damages for death or personal injury sounds in tort.” JCW Elecs., Inc. v. Garza, 257 S.W.3d 701, 705 (Tex. 2008) (internal citations omitted). 2024See JCW Elecs., Inc. v. Garza, 257 S.W.3d 701, 705 (Tex. 2008) (explaining that a breach of implied warranty claim sounds in contract when, as here, “the damages are purely economic”); Howard Indus., Inc. v. Crown Cork & Seal 6 Co., 403 S.W.3d 347, 352 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (“[A]n implied warranty becomes part of the terms of a contract.”). | 3 | 4 |
Hyundai Motor Co. v. Rodriguez Ex Rel. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2013As support for their position that an appellant may not recover attorney’s fees for a breach of implied warranty claim, appellants point to the Supreme Court of Texas’s statement in Hyundai Motor Co. v. Rodriguez that a plaintiff may recover only actual damages for breach of implied warranty. 995 S.W.2d 661, 668 (Tex. 1999). 2013As support for their position that an appellant may not recover attorney’s fees for a breach of implied warranty claim, appellants point to the Supreme Court of Texas’s statement in Hyundai Motor Co. v. Rodriguez that a plaintiff may recover only actual damages for breach of implied warranty. 995 S.W.2d 661, 668 (Tex.1999). | 3 | 3 |
Cocke v. Whitegreen2 sentences2009See Cocke v. White , 697 S.W.2d 739, 743 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ("The elements that a plaintiff must prove [in a breach of implied warranty claim] are (1) the implied warranty of good workmanship, (2) the breach thereof and (3) that such breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages."). 2009See Cocke v. White, 697 S.W.2d 739, 743 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ("The elements that a plaintiff must prove [in a breach of implied warranty claim] are (1) the implied warranty of good workmanship, (2) the breach thereof and (3) that such breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages."). | 2 | 2 |
Bell v. Meeksgreen2 sentences1993Relying on Bell v. Meeks, 725 S.W.2d 179, 180 (Tex.1987), Gracy Meadow argues that “it is not an abuse of discretion for a court to find that there is no practical difference in the factual development between a breach of implied warranty claim and a DTPA representation claim.” We do not address, however, whether there could ever be a practical distinction between a breach-of-warranty claim and a misrepresentation claim such that a court might abuse its discretion in denying a continuance after a trial amendment had been allowed. 1993Relying on Bell v. Meeks , 725 S.W.2d 179, 180 (Tex. 1987), Gracy Meadow argues that "it is not an abuse of discretion for a court to find that there is no practical difference in the factual development between a breach of implied warranty claim and a DTPA representation claim." We do not address, however, whether there could ever be a practical distinction between a breach-of-warranty claim and a misrepresentation claim such that a court might abuse its discretion in denying a continuance after a trial amendment had been allowed. | 2 | 2 |
Howard Industries, Inc. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co.green1 sentence2024See JCW Elecs., Inc. v. Garza, 257 S.W.3d 701, 705 (Tex. 2008) (explaining that a breach of implied warranty claim sounds in contract when, as here, “the damages are purely economic”); Howard Indus., Inc. v. Crown Cork & Seal 6 Co., 403 S.W.3d 347, 352 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (“[A]n implied warranty becomes part of the terms of a contract.”). | 1 | 1 |
Mills v. Warner-Lambert Co.green1 sentence2016See Mills, 581 F.Supp.2d at 792-93 (holding plaintiffs’ claims alleging purely economic damages for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability were not product liability actions “[b]ased on the definition of ‘product liability action’ in Section 82.001(2) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code”). | 1 | 1 |
Codner v. Arellanogreen1 sentence2015Raymond v. Rahme, 78 SW3d 552, 563 (Tex. App—Austin, 2002, no pet.); Codner v. Arellano, 40 S.W.3d 666, 673-74 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Raymond v. Rahmegreen1 sentence2015Raymond v. Rahme, 78 SW3d 552, 563 (Tex. App—Austin, 2002, no pet.); Codner v. Arellano, 40 S.W.3d 666, 673-74 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Reedgreen2 sentences2008Co. v. DeLanney, 809 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Tex. 1991); Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Reed, 711 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex.1986); but a breach of implied warranty claim alleging damages for death or personal injury sounds in tort, see Hyundai Motor Co. v. Rodriguez, 995 S.W.2d 661, 664 (Tex.1999); WILLIAM POWERS, JR., TEXAS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LAW § 1.02, at 1-1 (2d ed.1994). 2008Co. v. DeLanney, 809 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Tex. 1991); Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Reed, 711 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex.1986); but a breach of implied warranty claim alleging damages for death or personal injury sounds in tort, see Hyundai Motor Co. v. Rodriguez, 995 S.W.2d 661, 664 (Tex.1999); William PoweRS, Je., Texas PRODUCTS Liability Law § 1.02, at 1-1 (2d ed.1994). | 1 | 1 |
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. DeLanneygreen2 sentences2008Co. v. DeLanney, 809 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Tex. 1991); Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Reed, 711 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex.1986); but a breach of implied warranty claim alleging damages for death or personal injury sounds in tort, see Hyundai Motor Co. v. Rodriguez, 995 S.W.2d 661, 664 (Tex.1999); WILLIAM POWERS, JR., TEXAS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LAW § 1.02, at 1-1 (2d ed.1994). 2008Co. v. DeLanney, 809 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Tex. 1991); Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Reed, 711 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex.1986); but a breach of implied warranty claim alleging damages for death or personal injury sounds in tort, see Hyundai Motor Co. v. Rodriguez, 995 S.W.2d 661, 664 (Tex.1999); William PoweRS, Je., Texas PRODUCTS Liability Law § 1.02, at 1-1 (2d ed.1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Parkway Co. v. Woodruff
green
2 sentences2003Id. 2003Id. | 2 | 2003–2003 |
PPG Industries, Inc. v. JMB/Houston Centers Partners Ltd. Partnership
green
1 sentence2009Id. at 88 (citing Nobility Homes , 557 S.W.2d at 81 ). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Nobility Homes of Texas, Inc. v. Shivers
green
1 sentence2009Id. at 88 (citing Nobility Homes , 557 S.W.2d at 81 ). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.