Legal Opinion

Banowsky v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)

Decided April 28, 1994No. 07-93-0373-CVPublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

REYNOLDS, Chief Justice.

Aggrieved by a take-nothing summary judgment rendered in his action against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Baxter W. Banowsky contends, by four points of error, that State Farm did not establish its right to summary judgment. By cross-point, State Farm maintains that Ba-nowsky did not establish his right to the take-nothing summary judgment rendered on its counterclaim. Based upon the rationale expressed, we will affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

The litigation underlying this appeal had its genesis in a collision in Dallas between…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin AuthorityTexas Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Davis v. HueyTexas Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Chessher v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Life Insurance Co. of Virginia v. Gar-Dal, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1978

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Columbia Rio Grande Regional Hospital v. Stover, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2000
  2. United States Ex Rel. Wallace v. Flintco Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1998
  3. Trusty v. Strayhorn, Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)2002
  4. Crossley v. Staley, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)1999
  5. Ausaf v. Highlands Insurance Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1999

17 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