Legal Opinion · Dissent

Gonzalez v. Gainan's Chevrolet City, Inc.

Texas Supreme Court

Decided May 29, 1985No. C-3700Published

1DissentMcGEE, Justice

Three of our courts of appeals have considered contracts which contain the provision attacked in this cause. See Gonzalez v. Gainan’s Chevrolet City, Inc., 684 S.W.2d 740 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1984, writ granted); Hinojosa v. Castellow Chevrolet Oldsmobile, Inc., 678 S.W.2d 707 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.); and Martens v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 584 S.W.2d 941 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1979, no writ). All three courts have found the provision to comply with the law. I agree with the unanimous analysis of our courts of appeals. Therefore, I dissent.

The majority…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Van Zandt v. Fort Worth PressTexas Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Knight v. International Harvester Credit Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Smart v. Tower Land & Investment Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. SchuenemannTexas Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Tenneco Oil Company v. Padre Drilling CompanyTexas Supreme Court · 1970

21 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