recovery claim in Texas

2012See, e.g., Leyendecker & Assocs., Inc. v. Wechter, 683 S.W.2d 369, 374 (Tex. 1984) (affirming award of $1,500 in mental anguish damages because “[t]he law presumes a statement which is libelous per se defames a person and injures his reputation”); Knox v. Taylor, 992 S.W.2d 40, 60 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (rejecting challenge to sufficiency of evidence supporting mental anguish damages award because “[i]n the recovery on a claim of defamation per se, the law presumes actual damages and no independent proof of damages to reputation or of mental anguish is required”); Mitre

2011In a case of defamation per se, actual damages to a victim's reputation are presumed. [26] Leyendecker & Assocs. v. Wechter , 683 S.W.2d 369, 374 (Tex. 1984) (“Once injury to reputation is established, a person defamed may recover general damages without proof of other injury.”); Knox v. Taylor , 992 S.W.2d 40, 60 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (“In the recovery on a claim of defamation per se, the law presumes actual damages and no independent proof of damages to reputation or of mental anguish is required.”).

2013See Knox v. Taylor, 992 S.W.2d 40, 60 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (“In the recovery on a claim of defamation per se, the law presumes actual damages and no independent proof of damages to reputation or of mental anguish is required.”).

2013See Knox v. Taylor, 992 S.W.2d 40, 60 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.j 1999, no pet.) ("In the recovery on a claim of defamation per se, the law presumes actual damages and no independent proof of damages to reputation or of mental anguish is required.”).

2006Co. v. Brown, 663 S.W.2d 562, 583 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1983) (“The law presumes actual damages if libel per se is proven.”), rev’d in part on other grounds, 704 S.W.2d 742, 745 (Tex.1986).

2006Co. v. Brown , 663 S.W.2d 562, 583 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1983) (“The law presumes actual damages if libel per se is proven.”), rev’d in part on other grounds , 704 S.W.2d 742, 745 (Tex. 1986).

2006Co. v. Brown, 663 S.W.2d 562, 583 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1983) (“The law presumes actual damages if libel per se is proven.”), rev’d in part on other grounds, 704 S.W.2d 742, 745 (Tex.1986).

2006Co. v. Brown , 663 S.W.2d 562, 583 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1983) (“The law presumes actual damages if libel per se is proven.”), rev’d in part on other grounds , 704 S.W.2d 742, 745 (Tex. 1986).

2006“Once injury to reputation is established, a person defamed may recover general damages without proof of other injury.” Leyendecker, 683 S.W.2d at 374 ; Knox, 992 S.W.2d at 60 (“In the recovery on a claim of defamation per se, the law presumes actual damages and no independent proof of damages to reputation or of mental anguish is required.”); Marathon Oil Co. v. Salazar, 682 S.W.2d 624, 630 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, writ ref d n.r.e.) (holding that words that are libelous per se are so obviously hurtful to person aggrieved by them that they require no proof of their injurious charac

2006“Once injury to reputation is established, a person defamed may recover general damages without proof of other injury.” Leyendecker , 683 S.W.2d at 374 ; Knox , 992 S.W.2d at 60 (“In the recovery on a claim of defamation per se , the law presumes actual damages and no independent proof of damages to reputation or of mental anguish is required.”); Marathon Oil Co. v. Salazar , 682 S.W.2d 624, 630 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (holding that words that are libelous per se are so obviously hurtful to person aggrieved by them that they require no proof of their injurious c

2000Artripe v. Hughes , 857 S.W.2d 82, 87 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied); see Tex. Civ.

2000Artripe v. Hughes, 857 S.W.2d 82, 87 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied); see Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 41.003(a)(1) (Vernon 1997). 7 .

2023Id. at 705–06.

2022In re Estate of Guerrero, 465 S.W.3d 693, 705-06 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. denied).

2012See, e.g., Leyendecker & Assocs., Inc. v. Wechter, 683 S.W.2d 369, 374 (Tex. 1984) (affirming award of $1,500 in mental anguish damages because “[t]he law presumes a statement which is libelous per se defames a person and injures his reputation”); Knox v. Taylor, 992 S.W.2d 40, 60 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (rejecting challenge to sufficiency of evidence supporting mental anguish damages award because “[i]n the recovery on a claim of defamation per se, the law presumes actual damages and no independent proof of damages to reputation or of mental anguish is required”); Mitre

1999See Leyendecker & Assocs., Inc. v. Wechter, 683 S.W.2d 369, 374 (Tex.1984); Mitre, 840 S.W.2d at 620 ; Tatum, 749 S.W.2d at 258 .

2022See 45 U.S.C. § 151 ; see also Baylis, 906 F.2d at 875, 877 (holding RLA preempted state-law claims from airline employees that hotel tortiously induced the airline to breach its contract with employees); Westbrook v. Sky Chefs, Inc., 35 F.3d 316, 317 (7th Cir. 1994) (“The RLA governs relations between employers that are 5 Of course, if SWAPA were to prevail, Southwest Airlines would urge that the issue was settled subject only to the untangling of the claims under the single recovery rule, assuming this would even be possible.

2022See 45 U.S.C. § 151 ; see also Baylis, 906 F.2d at 875, 877 (holding RLA preempted state-law claims from airline employees that hotel tortiously induced the airline to breach its contract with employees); Westbrook v. Sky Chefs, Inc., 35 F.3d 316, 317 (7th Cir. 1994) (“The RLA governs relations between employers that are 5 Of course, if SWAPA were to prevail, Southwest Airlines would urge that the issue was settled subject only to the untangling of the claims under the single recovery rule, assuming this would even be possible.

2021But dismissal under this instance will be under Rule 91 and the procedure discussed in Herring, not Rule 91a.19 18 As noted, Professor Carlson explained, A special exception challenging a claim will be grounded on one or more of three propositions, the applicable one being set out explicitly: (1) that no legal rule justifies a recovery on a claim or defense of the type alleged; (2) that, though there is a legal rule that might be applicable, the petition or answer omits one or more allegations essential to bring the claim or defense within its scope; or (3) that, though there is a legal rule t

2019Co., 543 S.W.3d 428, 436 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. pending) (“As this court has recognized, full and timely payment of an appraisal award under the policy precludes as a matter of law an award of penalties under the Insurance Code’s prompt-payment provisions.”); Nat’l Sec.

2016Id. (citing Sepulveda v. Krishnan, 839 S.W.2d 132, 135 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1992), aff’d, 916 S.W.2d 478 (Tex. 1995).

2015See City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 827 ; Dow Chem., 46 S.W.3d at 241 Accordingly, we overrule Pointe West’s second issue.

2012See, e.g., Leyendecker & Assocs., Inc. v. Wechter, 683 S.W.2d 369, 374 (Tex. 1984) (affirming award of $1,500 in mental anguish damages because “[t]he law presumes a statement which is libelous per se defames a person and injures his reputation”); Knox v. Taylor, 992 S.W.2d 40, 60 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (rejecting challenge to sufficiency of evidence supporting mental anguish damages award because “[i]n the recovery on a claim of defamation per se, the law presumes actual damages and no independent proof of damages to reputation or of mental anguish is required”); Mitre

2012See, e.g., Leyendecker & Assocs., Inc. v. Wechter, 683 S.W.2d 369, 374 (Tex. 1984) (affirming award of $1,500 in mental anguish damages because “[t]he law presumes a statement which is libelous per se defames a person and injures his reputation”); Knox v. Taylor, 992 S.W.2d 40, 60 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (rejecting challenge to sufficiency of evidence supporting mental anguish damages award because “[i]n the recovery on a claim of defamation per se, the law presumes actual damages and no independent proof of damages to reputation or of mental anguish is required”); Mitre

2012See, e.g., Leyendecker & Assocs., Inc. v. Wechter, 683 S.W.2d 369, 374 (Tex. 1984) (affirming award of $1,500 in mental anguish damages because “[t]he law presumes a statement which is libelous per se defames a person and injures his reputation”); Knox v. Taylor, 992 S.W.2d 40, 60 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (rejecting challenge to sufficiency of evidence supporting mental anguish damages award because “[i]n the recovery on a claim of defamation per se, the law presumes actual damages and no independent proof of damages to reputation or of mental anguish is required”); Mitre

2011Kaplan v. Kaplan , 129 S.W.3d 666, 669 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied).

2007See Larry F. Smith, Inc. v. Weber Co. , 110 S.W.3d 611, 614 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, pet. denied).

2007Id.