Legal Opinion

Peeler v. Hughes & Luce

Texas Supreme Court

Decided October 27, 1995No. 94-0041PublishedCited by 293 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEnoch, Justice

in which HECHT, CORNYN and OWEN, Justices, join.

Carol Peeler committed a federal crime. She now sues her attorney because she was indicted, convicted, and punished for that crime. We are asked to decide whether Texas law permits her to do so. The public policy of this State dictates that Peeler’s own conduct is the sole cause of her indictment and conviction. Consequently, without first establishing that she has been exonerated by direct appeal, post-conviction relief, or otherwise, Peeler cannot sue her attorney. The trial court so held, the court of appeals so held, and we so hold. The…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Moreno v. Sterling Drug, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1990
  4. McGinnis v. RoysterSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  5. Union Pump Co. v. AllbrittonTexas Supreme Court · 1995

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by293 opinions

  1. Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint VentureTexas Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Federal Sign v. Texas Southern UniversityTexas Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. v. National Development & Research Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 2009
  4. Alexander v. Turtur & Associates, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Farah v. Mafrige & Kormanik, P.C., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1996

288 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API