Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
JSC Neftegas-Impex v. Citibank, N.A.green2 sentences2014See JSC Neftegas-Impex v. Citibank, N.A., No. 01-07-00397-CV, 2011 WL 480931, at *16 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. denied); Citizens Nat’l Bank v. Allen Rae Invs. 2012See JSC Neftegas-Impex v. Citibank, N.A., 365 S.W.3d 387, 408-09 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. denied); Citizens Nat'l Bank v. Allen Rae Invs. | 2 | 2 |
Johnson v. Peckhamgreen2 sentences2011In Schlumberger, the Texas Supreme Court noted the case of Johnson v. Peckham, 132 Tex. 148 , 120 S.W.2d 786, 788 (1938), which held that partners owe each other a duty to make full disclosure of all material facts; therefore, the issue of one partner’s reliance on the other to discharge that duty to disclose was immaterial. 2011In Schlumberger, the Texas Supreme Court noted the case of Johnson v. Peckham, 132 Tex. 148 , 120 S.W.2d 786, 788 (1938), which held that partners owe each other a duty to make full disclosure of all material facts; therefore, the issue of one partner’s reliance on the other to discharge that duty to disclose was immaterial. | 2 | 2 |
Oliver v. Rogersgreen2 sentences2014Likewise, when a fraud by non-disclosure claim is founded upon a statement by the defendant, the statement must be actionable; a non-actionable statement of opinion will not support a fraudulent non-disclosure claim. 10 See Oliver v. Rogers, 976 S.W.2d 792 , 803–04 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. denied) (affirming summary judgment on claim that defendants had duty to disclose alleged intent not to perform arising after transaction closed, because promise of future performance is actionable only 10 A fraud by non-disclosure claim may arise out of (1) a fiduciary relationship, which e 2012Likewise, when a fraud by non-disclosure claim is founded upon a statement by the defendant, the statement must be actionable; a non-actionable statement of opinion will not support a fraudulent non-disclosure claim. 10 See Oliver v. Rogers, 976 S.W.2d 792, 803-04 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. denied) (affirming summary judgment on claim that defendants had duty to disclose alleged intent not to perform arising after transaction closed, because promise of future performance is actionable only if there was no intent to perform at time of contracting); Stephanz v. Laird, 846 S.W.2d 89 | 1 | 2 |
Zhou Pei and Shaun White v. Nicholas White, Mark Moersen, Taurus Manufacturing Co. and Optimas Manufacturing Solutionsgreen2 sentences2025See Pei, 452 S.W.3d at 537 ; Chapman, 118 S.W.3d at 751 . 37 Furthermore, Maria stated in her affidavit that appellants did not know the second foreclosure sale would take place “or else [appellants] would not have paid the money.” See Pei, 452 S.W.3d at 537 ; Chapman, 118 S.W.3d at 751 . 2025See Pei, 452 S.W.3d at 537 ; Chapman, 118 S.W.3d at 751 . 37 Furthermore, Maria stated in her affidavit that appellants did not know the second foreclosure sale would take place “or else [appellants] would not have paid the money.” See Pei, 452 S.W.3d at 537 ; Chapman, 118 S.W.3d at 751 . | 1 | 1 |
Stephanz v. Lairdgreen1 sentence2012Likewise, when a fraud by non-disclosure claim is founded upon a statement by the defendant, the statement must be actionable; a non-actionable statement of opinion will not support a fraudulent non-disclosure claim. 10 See Oliver v. Rogers, 976 S.W.2d 792, 803-04 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. denied) (affirming summary judgment on claim that defendants had duty to disclose alleged intent not to perform arising after transaction closed, because promise of future performance is actionable only if there was no intent to perform at time of contracting); Stephanz v. Laird, 846 S.W.2d 89 | 1 | 1 |
Citizens National Bank v. Allen Rae Investments Inc.green1 sentence2012Likewise, when a fraud by non-disclosure claim is founded upon a statement by the defendant, the statement must be actionable; a non-actionable statement of opinion will not support a fraudulent non-disclosure claim. 10 See Oliver v. Rogers, 976 S.W.2d 792, 803-04 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. denied) (affirming summary judgment on claim that defendants had duty to disclose alleged intent not to perform arising after transaction closed, because promise of future performance is actionable only if there was no intent to perform at time of contracting); Stephanz v. Laird, 846 S.W.2d 89 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schlumberger Technology Corp. v. Swanson
green
2 sentences2011PAS cites Schlumberger Technical Corp. v. Swanson , 959 S.W.2d 171 (Tex. 1997), and Yeckel v. Abbott , No. 03-04-00713-CV, 2009 WL 1563587 (Tex. App.—Austin June 4, 2009, pet. denied), for the proposition that reliance is not an element of a fraud by non-disclosure claim against a fiduciary. 2011PAS cites Schlumberger Technology Corp. v. Swanson, 959 S.W.2d 171 (Tex.1997), and Yeckel v. Abbott, No. 03-04-00713-CV, 2009 WL 1563587 (Tex.App.-Austin June 4, 2009, pet. denied), for the proposition that reliance is not an element of a fraud by non-disclosure claim against a fiduciary. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman
green
2 sentences2025See Pei, 452 S.W.3d at 537 ; Chapman, 118 S.W.3d at 751 . 37 Furthermore, Maria stated in her affidavit that appellants did not know the second foreclosure sale would take place “or else [appellants] would not have paid the money.” See Pei, 452 S.W.3d at 537 ; Chapman, 118 S.W.3d at 751 . 2025See Pei, 452 S.W.3d at 537 ; Chapman, 118 S.W.3d at 751 . 37 Furthermore, Maria stated in her affidavit that appellants did not know the second foreclosure sale would take place “or else [appellants] would not have paid the money.” See Pei, 452 S.W.3d at 537 ; Chapman, 118 S.W.3d at 751 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Moncrief Oil International, Inc. v. Oao Gazprom, Gazprom Export, LLC, and Gazprom Marketing & Trading, Ltd.
green
1 sentence2021This interlocutory appeal followed. 1 The record does not reflect when Huffman and Thompson obtained this hearing date. 2 More particularly, Lonestar asserted Huffman and Thompson failed to disclose Nashville was unable to process the volume of files it was accepting and that funds it received were not being used to fund the processing of mortgage cancelation services for Lonestar. –4– DISCUSSION Lonestar contends controlling precedent set forth in Moncrief Oil International Inc. v. Oao Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2013), and the evidence presented in response to the special appearances,3 est | 1 | 2021–2021 |