Legal Opinion

Lancaster & Love, Inc. v. Mueller Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided February 14, 1958No. 15355PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

YOUNG, Justice.

Appellant’s tort action in trial court was twofold — for malicious prosecution and “meddlesome interference”; defendants (The Mueller Company, an Illinois corporation with Texas office in Harris County, United States Pipe & Foundry Company, a foreign corporation having an office in Dallas County, and Ellis, Smith & Company, a copartnership, also of Dallas County) invoking provisions of Rule 166-A, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (Summary Judgment). Upon hearing of motions, same were sustained with judgment that plaintiff take nothing, followed by this appeal.

Plaintiff’s trial…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Schroeder v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1951
  2. Pate v. StevensCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1953
  3. Goldner-Siegel Corp. v. Kraemer Hosiery Co.New York Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Koral v. Savory, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Lancaster & Love, Inc. v. Mueller Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1954

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Zurita v. Lombana, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2010
  2. Victor M. Zurita, DDS, MS. Individually and D/B/A Heights Medical and Dental Clinic and Ana Zurita v. Fernando Lombana, M.D., and Houston Medical & Dental Center Corp., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2010

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

Powered by the Exa API