Legal Opinion · Dissent

Champlin Petroleum Co. v. Heinz

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District

Decided December 30, 1983No. 13-83-389-CVPublished

1DissentKennedy, Justice

I respectfully dissent. I believe that the majority opinion has incorrectly evaluated the law and the facts of this case concerning the application of TEX.BUS. & COMM. CODE ANN. § 17.56 (Vernon Supp.1983). In its opinion, the majority states that, “[t]he legal test applied to determine whether a defendant has a fixed and established place of business under the provision of § 17.56 of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act is virtually identical for determining whether it had ‘an agency or representative’ under art. 1995, subdivision 27.” I disagree. Had the legislature intended for venue under the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ford Motor Credit Company v. Robert L. Weaver, John C. Weaver and Sons and Weaver Farms, DefendantsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1982
  2. In the Matter of P.S. Products Corp., Bankrupt v. Equilease CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1970
  3. Watsco, Inc. v. Henry Valve CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1964
  4. First Title Co. of Corpus Christi v. CookCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1981
  5. Railex Corp. v. White Machine Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API