Legal Opinion

Heine v. Schendel

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided September 6, 1990No. 13-89-025-CVPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SEERDEN, Justice.

This is a usury case. Roy Heine, Jr. appeals from an adverse judgment rendered in favor of Clarence Schendel who, Heine alleged, charged him a usurious rate of interest in the form of a price reduction for services rendered. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Heine was in the business of providing bulldozing services; he had done occasional work for Schendel. In late 1982, Heine decided to purchase a newer, larger, bulldozer to increase his productivity and to expand his business. After he was unable to obtain the appropriate financing, he approached Schendel…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Smart v. Tower Land & Investment Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1980
  2. WE Grace Manufacturing Company v. LevinTexas Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Hotel Longview, Inc. v. PittmanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1955
  4. Belzung v. Capital BankCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1980

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Celestina Adame v. Law Office of Allison & Huerta, a Texas General Partnership, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2008
  2. Celestina Adame v. Law Office of Allison & Huerta, a Texas General Partnership, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2008
  3. Seacoast, Inc. v. Chuck LaCouture D/B/A Cactus Energy Michael Wayne Briggs And Briggs Cockerham, L.L.C., Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2000

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

Powered by the Exa API