misidentification doctrine in Texas

2025Appellants do not argue misnomer on appeal. 8 Texas courts have also referred to the Hilland doctrine as the Hilland Rule, the Hilland exception, the misidentification doctrine, and the misidentification exception. 8 at 828, 830 (citing Hilland, 528 S.W.2d at 831 ); see also Bass, 133 S.W.3d at 274 (same); In re Greater Houston, 295 S.W.3d at 325 n.1 (discussing doctrine and citing Hilland and Bass).

2025Appellants do not argue misnomer on appeal. 8 Texas courts have also referred to the Hilland doctrine as the Hilland Rule, the Hilland exception, the misidentification doctrine, and the misidentification exception. 8 at 828, 830 (citing Hilland, 528 S.W.2d at 831 ); see also Bass, 133 S.W.3d at 274 (same); In re Greater Houston, 295 S.W.3d at 325 n.1 (discussing doctrine and citing Hilland and Bass).

2025If “the plaintiff is mistaken as to which of two defendants is the correct one and there is actually existing a corporation with the name of the erroneously named defendant (misidentification), then the plaintiff has sued the wrong party and limitations is not tolled.” Enserch Corp. v. Parker, 794 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. 1990) (emphasis added).7 The Texas Supreme Court has carved out a limited equitable exception to the misidentification rule, often referred to as the Hilland doctrine.8 Under this exception, in misidentification cases, limitations may be tolled when a plaintiff shows that he or she

2023Id. at 831 . 7 The Texas Supreme Court clarified the equitable exception to the misidentification doctrine in Chilkewitz v. Hyson, 22 S.W.3d 825 (Tex. 1999), in which it stated, “In misidentification cases, limitations may be tolled when a plaintiff sues an incorrect entity if there are two separate but related entities that use a similar trade name and the correct entity had notice of the suit and was not misled or disadvantaged by the mistake.” Id. at 830 ; see Flour Bluff Indep.

2001Co. , 519 S.W.2d 685, 688 (Tex. Civ.

2001Co., 519 S.W.2d 685, 688 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

2001That is, "When a party appealing a decision by the workers' compensation board files suit within the statutory time period but does not name and serve the correct defendant within that time period, can the statute of limitations be tolled by the doctrine of misidentification?" We hold that it can, disagreeing with the holdings of Johnson v. United Parcel Service , 36 S.W.3d 918 , (Tex. App.--Dallas 2001, pet. denied), Roberts v. Tarrant County Junior College, 842 S.W.2d 835, 836-37 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1992, writ denied) and Garcia v. Employers Cas.

2001That is, “When a party appealing a decision by the workers’ compensation board files suit within the statutory time period but does not name and serve the correct defendant within that time period, can the statute of limitations be tolled by the doctrine of misidentification?” We hold that it can, disagreeing with the holdings of Johnson v. United Parcel Service, 36 S.W.3d 918 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied), Roberts v. Tarrant County Junior College, 842 S.W.2d 835, 836-37 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1992, writ denied) and Garcia v. Employers Cas.

2023Id. at 831 . 7 The Texas Supreme Court clarified the equitable exception to the misidentification doctrine in Chilkewitz v. Hyson, 22 S.W.3d 825 (Tex. 1999), in which it stated, “In misidentification cases, limitations may be tolled when a plaintiff sues an incorrect entity if there are two separate but related entities that use a similar trade name and the correct entity had notice of the suit and was not misled or disadvantaged by the mistake.” Id. at 830 ; see Flour Bluff Indep.

2023Id. at 831 . 7 The Texas Supreme Court clarified the equitable exception to the misidentification doctrine in Chilkewitz v. Hyson, 22 S.W.3d 825 (Tex. 1999), in which it stated, “In misidentification cases, limitations may be tolled when a plaintiff sues an incorrect entity if there are two separate but related entities that use a similar trade name and the correct entity had notice of the suit and was not misled or disadvantaged by the mistake.” Id. at 830 ; see Flour Bluff Indep.

2025Appellants do not argue misnomer on appeal. 8 Texas courts have also referred to the Hilland doctrine as the Hilland Rule, the Hilland exception, the misidentification doctrine, and the misidentification exception. 8 at 828, 830 (citing Hilland, 528 S.W.2d at 831 ); see also Bass, 133 S.W.3d at 274 (same); In re Greater Houston, 295 S.W.3d at 325 n.1 (discussing doctrine and citing Hilland and Bass).

2025Appellants do not argue misnomer on appeal. 8 Texas courts have also referred to the Hilland doctrine as the Hilland Rule, the Hilland exception, the misidentification doctrine, and the misidentification exception. 8 at 828, 830 (citing Hilland, 528 S.W.2d at 831 ); see also Bass, 133 S.W.3d at 274 (same); In re Greater Houston, 295 S.W.3d at 325 n.1 (discussing doctrine and citing Hilland and Bass).

2022See Bass, 133 S.W.3d at 274 ; Chilkewitz, 22 S.W.3d at 830 ; Hilland, 528 S.W.2d at 831 ; Cooper, 187 S.W.3d at 720 .

2018Cooper v. D & D G.C. of Gilmer, Inc., 187 S.W.3d 717, 720 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006, no pet.).

2024See McCord v. Dodds, 69 S.W.3d 230 , 234–235 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied) (citing Matthews Trucking Co. v. Smith, 682 S.W.2d 237, 238 (Tex. 1984)).

2024See McCord v. Dodds, 69 S.W.3d 230 , 234–235 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied) (citing Matthews Trucking Co. v. Smith, 682 S.W.2d 237, 238 (Tex. 1984)).

2023See Lozano v. Broussard Int’l, No. 04-09-00047-CV, 2009 WL 3222820 , at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 7, 2009, pet. denied) (mem. op.); Brinker Tex., L.P. v. Looney, 135 S.W.3d 280, 285 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, no pet.); Palmer v. Enserch Corp., 728 S.W.2d 431, 434 (Tex. App.—Austin 1987, writ ref’d n.r.e.). 9

2023See Lozano v. Broussard Int’l, No. 04-09-00047-CV, 2009 WL 3222820 , at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 7, 2009, pet. denied) (mem. op.); Brinker Tex., L.P. v. Looney, 135 S.W.3d 280, 285 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, no pet.); Palmer v. Enserch Corp., 728 S.W.2d 431, 434 (Tex. App.—Austin 1987, writ ref’d n.r.e.). 9

2023Dist., 133 S.W.3d at 274 (concluding that the misidentification doctrine was not applicable because Flour Bluff Independent School District and the Texas Association of School Boards were two distinct parties that did not operate under a similar trade name); see also Taylor, 2018 WL 3322939 , at *3 (“In this case, even if UTSW and UT System are related entities, their ‘trade names,’ University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and University of Texas System, are not similar.”).

2020See City of Glenn Heights, 55 S.W.3d at 162-63 ; SEI Business Sys., Inc. v. Bank One Tex., N.A., 803 S.W.2d 838, 840-41 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, no writ). - 11 - 04-19-00363-CV has a business connection or relationship with the Denny’s owned by EYM Diner of Florida, LLC, the entity Burt served with the original petition.

2020See City of Glenn Heights, 55 S.W.3d at 162-63 ; SEI Business Sys., Inc. v. Bank One Tex., N.A., 803 S.W.2d 838, 840-41 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, no writ). - 11 - 04-19-00363-CV has a business connection or relationship with the Denny’s owned by EYM Diner of Florida, LLC, the entity Burt served with the original petition.

2011See Bailey, 332 S.W.3d at 400-01 .

2004Co., 537 S.W.2d 486, 487 (Tex. Civ.

2004See 174 S.W.2d 598, 600 (Tex. 1943); 4 Wilkerson’s motion was accompanied by his own affidavit but spoke only to the misidentification defense, not to the venue defense. 8 e.g., Castillo v. Allied Ins.