Legal Opinion
Shook v. Walden
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
Decided February 18, 2010No. 03-09-00576-CVPublishedCited by 87 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BOB PEMBERTON, Justice.
Appellant Stanley Shook has filed a motion for review of a December 9, 2009 district court order determining the amount of security required for him to suspend enforcement of the district court’s judgment pending this appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 52.006(d) (West 2008); Tex.R.App. P. 24.4. The primary issues in dispute are whether section 52.006, subsection (a), of the civil practice and remedies code, as amended in 2003, requires Shook to secure the amount of attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest awarded in the district court’s judgment. Also…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. RobinsonTexas Supreme Court · 1996
- City of Rockwall v. HughesTexas Supreme Court · 2008
- Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. and Brien Garcia v. Nury ChapaTexas Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. ShumakeTexas Supreme Court · 2006
- Johnson & Higgins of Texas, Inc. v. Kenneco Energy, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1998
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by87 opinions
- In re Nalle Plastics Family Ltd. PartnershipTexas Supreme Court · 2013
- Stanley Shook// Terry Walden and Joy Walden v. Terry Walden and Joy Walden// Stanley Shook, Patrick Jaehne and S&J Endeavors, L.L.C., Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2012
- Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners v. Texas Medical Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2012
- Sunshine Jespersen v. Sweetwater Ranch Apartments and CNC Investments, LTD, LLP, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2012
- M-E Engineers, Inc. v. City of Temple, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2012
82 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.