Legal Opinion

Texas a & M University-Kingsville v. Lawson

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)

Decided March 4, 2004No. 03-03-00129-CVPublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MACK KIDD, Justice.

Texas A & M University-Kingsville (“TAMUK”) appeals from a judgment imposing liability on TAMUK for breaching a settlement agreement between it and Grant M. Lawson. TAMUK argues that the district court’s judgment should be reversed because the settlement agreement was never approved by the requisite state officials and because the settlement agreement required TAMUK employees to provide false information to members of the public. TAMUK also argues that the district court’s award of attorney fees was improper. We will affirm the judgment of the district court.

BACKGROUN…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of AustinTexas Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Bocquet v. HerringTexas Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation DistrictTexas Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Lewis v. DavisTexas Supreme Court · 1947
  5. Texas a & M University-Kingsville v. LawsonTexas Supreme Court · 2002

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Springs Window Fashions Division, Inc. v. Blind Maker, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2006
  2. City of Houston v. Petroleum Traders Corp., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2008
  3. County of Galveston v. Triple B Services, LLPCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2016
  4. Greco v. National Football LeagueDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 2015
  5. Indian Oil Company, LLC and William E. Trotter, II v. Bishop Petroleum, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2013

26 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