fact issue regarding doctrine in Texas

2015See Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., 348 S.W.3d 194, 209 (Tex. 2011) (the doctrine of fraudulent concealment did not toll the limitations period where plaintiff had “actual knowledge of alleged injury-causing conduct”); cf. Etan Indus., Inc., 359 S.W.3d at 623 (the estoppel effect of defendant’s presumed fraudulent concealment ended when plaintiffs were appraised of facts, conditions, and circumstances sufficient to cause a reasonable person to make inquiry that would lead to the discovery of the concealed cause of action.).

2015See Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., 348 S.W.3d 194, 209 (Tex.2011) (the' doctrine of fraudulent concealment did not toll the limitations period where plaintiff had “actual knowledge of alleged injury-causing conduct”); cf. Etan Indus., Inc., 359 S.W.3d at 623 (the estoppel effect of defendant’s presumed fraudulent concealment ended when plaintiffs were appraised of facts, conditions, and circumstances sufficient to cause a reasonable person to make inquiry that would lead to the discovery of the concealed cause of action.).

2015See Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., 348 S.W.3d 194, 209 (Tex. 2011) (the doctrine of fraudulent concealment did not toll the limitations period where plaintiff had “actual knowledge of alleged injury-causing conduct”); cf. Etan Indus., Inc., 359 S.W.3d at 623 (the estoppel effect of defendant’s presumed fraudulent concealment ended when plaintiffs were appraised of facts, conditions, and circumstances sufficient to cause a reasonable person to make inquiry that would lead to the discovery of the concealed cause of action.).

2015See Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., 348 S.W.3d 194, 209 (Tex.2011) (the' doctrine of fraudulent concealment did not toll the limitations period where plaintiff had “actual knowledge of alleged injury-causing conduct”); cf. Etan Indus., Inc., 359 S.W.3d at 623 (the estoppel effect of defendant’s presumed fraudulent concealment ended when plaintiffs were appraised of facts, conditions, and circumstances sufficient to cause a reasonable person to make inquiry that would lead to the discovery of the concealed cause of action.).

2011See Mesa , 543 F.3d at 269 .

2011See Mesa, 543 F.3d at 269 .

2024See Brownlee, 665 S.W.2d at 112 (“If the party opposing a summary judgment relies on an affirmative defense, he must come forward with summary judgment evidence sufficient to raise an issue of fact on each element of the defense to avoid summary judgment.”); Fontana Evolution, LLC v. SCP Distrib., –25– LLC, No. 02-22-00211-CV; 2023 WL 308176 , at *4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 19, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (summary judgment non-movant bore burden to raise a fact issue regarding the defense of release).

2022Accordingly, Santos did not raise a fact issue regarding her defense that Yellowfin’s claim accrued outside the applicable limitations period.5 See, e.g., Ocean Transp., Inc. v. Greycas, Inc., 878 S.W.2d 256, 267 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1994, writ denied) (when note provided that lender, at its option, could declare note immediately due and payable upon default of any installment, date of acceleration triggered limitations period).