Legal Opinion

Haynes & Boone v. Bowser Bouldin, Ltd.

Texas Supreme Court

Decided March 30, 1995No. D-4448PublishedCited by 183 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEnoch, Justice

Bowser Bouldm, Ltd. (Bouldin) recovered judgment for malpractice and violation of the Deceptive Trades Practices — Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), Tex.Bus. & Com.Code §§ 17.41-.63, against its law firm Haynes & Boone for the firm’s handling of Bouldin’s suit with Blockbuster, Inc. Bouldin elected DTPA damages. The trial court awarded Bouldin damages for the loss of investment in a shopping center in which Blockbuster was a tenant, the deficiency balance Bouldin was obligated to pay when the center was foreclosed upon by its creditor, the cost of settlement of the Blockbuster litigation, lost…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Morgan v. Compugraphic Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Alamo National Bank v. KrausTexas Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Rourke v. GarzaTexas Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Best v. Ryan Auto Group, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1990

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

3Cited by183 opinions

  1. Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equipment Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Union Pump Co. v. AllbrittonTexas Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Ford Motor Co. v. LedesmaTexas Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Brown v. Bank of Galveston, National Ass'nTexas Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Alexander v. Turtur & Associates, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 2004

178 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