party cannot claim in Texas

2010See Nobles v. Marcus, 533 S.W.2d 923, 926 (Tex.1976) (holding that deeds obtained by fraud are voidable and remain effective until set aside); see also Williams v. Glash, 789 S.W.2d 261, 264 (Tex.1990) (stating that when parties to an agreement have contracted under a mutual misconception of material fact, the agreement is voidable under the doctrine of mutual mistake); Zapatero v. Canales, 730 S.W.2d 111, 114 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1987, writ refd n.r.e.) (declaring that a party cannot claim unilateral mistake concerning outstanding mineral interest because interest was fully described in deed

2010See Nobles v. Marcus , 533 S.W.2d 923, 926 (Tex. 1976) (holding that deeds obtained by fraud are voidable and remain effective until set aside); see also Williams v. Glash , 789 S.W.2d 261, 264 (Tex. 1990) (stating that when parties to an agreement have contracted under a mutual misconception of material fact, the agreement is voidable under the doctrine of mutual mistake); Zapatero v. Canales , 730 S.W.2d 111, 114 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1987, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (declaring that a party cannot claim unilateral mistake concerning outstanding mineral interest because interest was fully described

2010See Nobles v. Marcus, 533 S.W.2d 923, 926 (Tex.1976) (holding that deeds obtained by fraud are voidable and remain effective until set aside); see also Williams v. Glash, 789 S.W.2d 261, 264 (Tex.1990) (stating that when parties to an agreement have contracted under a mutual misconception of material fact, the agreement is voidable under the doctrine of mutual mistake); Zapatero v. Canales, 730 S.W.2d 111, 114 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1987, writ refd n.r.e.) (declaring that a party cannot claim unilateral mistake concerning outstanding mineral interest because interest was fully described in deed

2010See Nobles v. Marcus , 533 S.W.2d 923, 926 (Tex. 1976) (holding that deeds obtained by fraud are voidable and remain effective until set aside); see also Williams v. Glash , 789 S.W.2d 261, 264 (Tex. 1990) (stating that when parties to an agreement have contracted under a mutual misconception of material fact, the agreement is voidable under the doctrine of mutual mistake); Zapatero v. Canales , 730 S.W.2d 111, 114 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1987, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (declaring that a party cannot claim unilateral mistake concerning outstanding mineral interest because interest was fully described

2010See Nobles v. Marcus, 533 S.W.2d 923, 926 (Tex.1976) (holding that deeds obtained by fraud are voidable and remain effective until set aside); see also Williams v. Glash, 789 S.W.2d 261, 264 (Tex.1990) (stating that when parties to an agreement have contracted under a mutual misconception of material fact, the agreement is voidable under the doctrine of mutual mistake); Zapatero v. Canales, 730 S.W.2d 111, 114 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1987, writ refd n.r.e.) (declaring that a party cannot claim unilateral mistake concerning outstanding mineral interest because interest was fully described in deed

2010See Nobles v. Marcus , 533 S.W.2d 923, 926 (Tex. 1976) (holding that deeds obtained by fraud are voidable and remain effective until set aside); see also Williams v. Glash , 789 S.W.2d 261, 264 (Tex. 1990) (stating that when parties to an agreement have contracted under a mutual misconception of material fact, the agreement is voidable under the doctrine of mutual mistake); Zapatero v. Canales , 730 S.W.2d 111, 114 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1987, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (declaring that a party cannot claim unilateral mistake concerning outstanding mineral interest because interest was fully described

2018See In re Gulf Expl., LLC, 289 S.W.3d 836, 839 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding).

2017See Ohler, 529 U.S. at 760 , 120 S.Ct. 1851 ; Roderick, 494 S.W.3d at 881 ; see also Thompson, 2001 WL 1002415 , at *2 (explaining that “a party cannot claim on appeal that evidence he introduced was erroneously admitted”).

2017See Ohler, 529 U.S. at 760 , 120 S.Ct. 1851 ; Roderick, 494 S.W.3d at 881 ; see also Thompson, 2001 WL 1002415 , at *2 (explaining that “a party cannot claim on appeal that evidence he introduced was erroneously admitted”).

2015Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil, Co., 729 S.W.2d 768, 841 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, writ ref’d 13 Hinson mischaracterizes Fidelity’s summary judgment evidence.

2015Co., 896 S.W.2d 388, 389 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied).

2003Allen v. City of Midlothian, 927 S.W.2d 316, 320 (Tex.App.-Waco 1996, no writ); see Belleza-Gonzalez v. Villa, 57 S.W.3d 8, 12 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (when agreement between attorneys or parties delays appellant from obtaining service on appellees, agreement must meet requirements of rule 11); see also London Mkt.

2003Allen v. City of Midlothian, 927 S.W.2d 316, 320 (Tex.App.-Waco 1996, no writ); see Belleza-Gonzalez v. Villa, 57 S.W.3d 8, 12 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (when agreement between attorneys or parties delays appellant from obtaining service on appellees, agreement must meet requirements of rule 11); see also London Mkt.