misrepresentation claim in Texas

2011See Kessler v. Fannig, 953 S.W.2d 515, 519 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1997, no writ) ("possibility of an independent investigation that might have uncovered fraud does not preclude recovery for fraudulent representations" and "the [plaintiff's] inspection was not a defense to this misrepresentation claim"); Carruth v. Allen, 368 S.W.2d 672, 679 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1963, no writ) ("An independent investigation of matters that eventually culminate in a contract does not as a matter of law defeat a right to rely on allegedly false representations.") Compare Camden Machine & Tool, Inc. v. Cascade Com

2011See Kessler v. Fannig, 953 S.W.2d 515, 519 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1997, no writ) ("possibility of an independent investigation that might have uncovered fraud does not preclude recovery for fraudulent representations" and "the [plaintiff's] inspection was not a defense to this misrepresentation claim"); Carruth v. Allen, 368 S.W.2d 672, 679 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1963, no writ) ("An independent investigation of matters that eventually culminate in a contract does not as a matter of law defeat a right to rely on allegedly false representations.") Compare Camden Machine & Tool, Inc. v. Cascade Com

2011See Kessler v. Fannig, 953 S.W.2d 515, 519 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1997, no writ) ("possibility of an independent investigation that might have uncovered fraud does not preclude recovery for fraudulent representations" and "the [plaintiff's] inspection was not a defense to this misrepresentation claim"); Carruth v. Allen, 368 S.W.2d 672, 679 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1963, no writ) ("An independent investigation of matters that eventually culminate in a contract does not as a matter of law defeat a right to rely on allegedly false representations.") Compare Camden Machine & Tool, Inc. v. Cascade Com

2011See Kessler v. Fannig, 953 S.W.2d 515, 519 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1997, no writ) ("possibility of an independent investigation that might have uncovered fraud does not preclude recovery for fraudulent representations" and "the [plaintiff's] inspection was not a defense to this misrepresentation claim"); Carruth v. Allen, 368 S.W.2d 672, 679 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1963, no writ) ("An independent investigation of matters that eventually culminate in a contract does not as a matter of law defeat a right to rely on allegedly false representations.") Compare Camden Machine & Tool, Inc. v. Cascade Com

2011See Kessler v. Fannig, 953 S.W.2d 515, 519 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1997, no writ) ("possibility of an independent investigation that might have uncovered fraud does not preclude recovery for fraudulent representations" and "the [plaintiff's] inspection was not a defense to this misrepresentation claim"); Carruth v. Allen, 368 S.W.2d 672, 679 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1963, no writ) ("An independent investigation of matters that eventually culminate in a contract does not as a matter of law defeat a right to rely on allegedly false representations.") Compare Camden Machine & Tool, Inc. v. Cascade Com

2011See Kessler v. Fannig, 953 S.W.2d 515, 519 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1997, no writ) ("possibility of an independent investigation that might have uncovered fraud does not preclude recovery for fraudulent representations" and "the [plaintiff's] inspection was not a defense to this misrepresentation claim"); Carruth v. Allen, 368 S.W.2d 672, 679 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1963, no writ) ("An independent investigation of matters that eventually culminate in a contract does not as a matter of law defeat a right to rely on allegedly false representations.") Compare Camden Machine & Tool, Inc. v. Cascade Com

2008Texas Beef Cattle Co. v. Green, 921 S.W.2d 203, 212 (Tex. 1996).

2008Texas Beef Cattle Co. v. Green, 921 S.W.2d 203, 212 (Tex. 1996).

2019Id. (emphasis added) (citing Koral Indus. v. Security-Connecticut Life Ins., 802 S.W.2d 650, 651 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam)).43 In a later portion of the opinion, we noted, “The record shows that standing water would not drain from the yard after periods of heavy rains, a 43 In Koral, the insurance company refused to pay benefits based on fraudulent inducement and misrepresentations after the company’s insured, who had failed to disclose damaging medical history, died within what the insurer claimed was the contestable period of the policy. 802 S.W.2d at 650–51.

1997The possibility of an independent investigation that might have uncovered fraud does not preclude recovery of damages for fraudulent representations, see Koral Industries v. Security-Connecticut Life Ins., 802 S.W.2d 650, 651 (Tex.1990), and the Fannings’ inspection was not a defense to this misrepresentation claim.

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.

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.

2008Co. v. Davenport , 159 S.W.2d 913, 918 ( Tex.Civ.App .—Eastland 1941, no writ).  "The mere fact that one makes a personal investigation, or consults with others, or has other sources of information open to him, does not necessarily show that he relied on such personal investigation, or the information gained therefrom, or through other sources."  Durham v. Wichita Mill & Elevator Co., 202 S.W. 138, 142 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1918, writ ref'd).  See Kessler v. Fannig , 953 S.W.2d 515, 519 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1997, no writ) ("possibility of an independent investigation that might have u

2008Co. v. Davenport , 159 S.W.2d 913, 918 ( Tex.Civ.App .—Eastland 1941, no writ).  "The mere fact that one makes a personal investigation, or consults with others, or has other sources of information open to him, does not necessarily show that he relied on such personal investigation, or the information gained therefrom, or through other sources."  Durham v. Wichita Mill & Elevator Co., 202 S.W. 138, 142 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1918, writ ref'd).  See Kessler v. Fannig , 953 S.W.2d 515, 519 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1997, no writ) ("possibility of an independent investigation that might have u

2023See In re Ford Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 315 , 318 n.1 (Tex. 2005) (applying precedent to the current version of a statute); Grapevine Excavation, 9 This brings us to the main issue on appeal: whether section 705.051 is an exclusive misrepresentation defense that effectively renders the common-law rule a dead letter.

2021Because he did not, any Brady claim would seem to have been forfeited as a result.9 If this is a misrepresentation claim, then there might be an argument for exempting it from preservation requirements and perhaps, in doing so, imposing a heavier burden to show materiality or prejudice.10 to cover exculpatory evidence as well, and we are bound by that decision.”). 7 Gonzales v. State, 435 S.W.3d 801 , 813 n.11 (Tex. Crim.

2021App. 2014) (“[F]ederal constitutional interpretations of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals are not binding on this Court.”). 8 See Ex parte Palmberg, 491 S.W.3d 804, 810 (Tex. Crim.

2021The events on the barge and the work performed by its crew “will be the focus of the trial, will consume most if not all of the litigation’s attention, and the overwhelming majority of the evidence will be directed to that question.” Id. (“Only after thoroughly considering the manner in which the hike was conducted will the jury be able to assess the Druggs’ misrepresentation claim.”).

2017See Magee, 347 S.W.3d at 297 .

2016See Ethio Express, 164 S.W.3d at 757-58 (concluding that misrepresentation claim did not fall within waiver of immunity); Pastusek Indus., 48 S.W.3d at 372 (same).

2016See Ethio Express, 164 S.W.3d at 757-58 (concluding that misrepresentation claim did not fall within waiver of immunity); Pastusek Indus., 48 S.W.3d at 372 (same).

2015The claim purports to rest on the assertion in April 2013 in the City’s plea in the first lawsuit averring that no action had been taken with respect to the property rendering Appellees’ claims unripe [See, C.R. 168-69 (Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition, ¶ 21)]. 7 First and foremost, a statement in a judicial proceeding enjoys privilege and cannot support a misrepresentation claim. 8 Perhaps more glaringly undermining 7 In addition to other dispositive grounds. 8 See, e.g., Bird v. W.C.W., 868 S.W.2d 767, 771-72 (Tex. 1994); Laub v. Pesikoff, 979 S.W.2d 686, 691-92 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dis

2015Instead, they involve claims under Texas common law for negligence stemming from plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos (Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Andrade, 19 S.W.3d 245, 247 (Tex. 1999)), a misrepresentation claim under Texas common law against an employee leasing company (Texas Workers’ Comp.

2015The claim purports to rest on the assertion in April 2013 in the City’s plea in the first lawsuit averring that no action had been taken with respect to the property rendering Appellees’ claims unripe [See, C.R. 168-69 (Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition, ¶ 21)]. 7 First and foremost, a statement in a judicial proceeding enjoys privilege and cannot support a misrepresentation claim. 8 Perhaps more glaringly undermining 7 In addition to other dispositive grounds. 8 See, e.g., Bird v. W.C.W., 868 S.W.2d 767, 771-72 (Tex. 1994); Laub v. Pesikoff, 979 S.W.2d 686, 691-92 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dis

2014See Quinn v. Dupree, 303 S.W.2d 769, 774 (Tex. 1957). 16 If Gotham proves its allegations that Pedeco knowingly misrepresented its interest, the misrepresentation clause will not violate public policy and the clause could operate to, among other remedies, render the insurance policy void.

2012See Head v. U.S. Inspect DFW, Inc., 159 S.W.3d 731, 742 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005) (citing Chemd, Inc. v. KPMG Peat Marwick, L.L.P., No. 05-00-00816-CV, 2001 Tex.App.

2011"The material question is, Did [Chesapeake] . . . rely on false statements or misrepresentations made by the [Charities]?" Durham, 202 S.W. at 142 .5 5 The Charities cite Bartlett v. Schmidt, 33 S.W.3d 35, 38 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 2000, pet. denied) for the proposition that any independent investigation by the buyer negates reliance on the seller's representations.