Legal Opinion
Arce v. Burrow
Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)
Decided January 15, 1998No. 14-95-00360-CVPublishedCited by 64 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CORRECTED OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
FOWLER, Justice.
Our opinions of August 28, 1997, and October 23, 1997, are withdrawn and this one substituted for them. The issues presented in this appeal from a summary judgment all revolve around one main issue: whether fee forfeiture is a viable remedy in Texas when an attorney breaches a fiduciary duty to a client, and, if fee forfeiture is a viable remedy, how it is applied. Concluding that fee forfeiture is a viable remedy, we reverse and remand in part and affirm in part.
On October 23,1989, a series of explosions rocked the Phillips 66 chemical…
2Cases cited87 opinions
- Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1985
- Gibbs v. General Motors CorporationTexas Supreme Court · 1970
- Ryland Group, Inc. v. HoodTexas Supreme Court · 1996
- S.V. v. R.V.Texas Supreme Court · 1996
- Willis v. MaverickTexas Supreme Court · 1988
82 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by64 opinions
- Burrow v. ArceTexas Supreme Court · 1999
- Alexander v. Turtur & Associates, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 2004
- Streber v. HunterCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2000
- Ex Parte GoodbreadCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1998
- Tanox, Inc. v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2003
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.