Legal Opinion

Schmidt v. Matise

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided February 18, 1988No. 05-86-01338-CVPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOWELL, Justice.

This is a suit over the division of a real estate brokerage fee. Marie Schmidt (“Salesperson” or “Agent”) and SDM, Inc. (“Third Broker” or “B-3”) appeal a summary judgment rendered in favor of appellees Hoyt R. Matise, Kenneth S. Olschwanger, and the Hoyt R. Matise Company (collectively “First Broker” or “B-l”). By its summary judgment, the trial court awarded the entirety of a $220,000 brokerage fee to B-l, denying the claim of Agent and B-3 for one-half thereof, amounting to $110,-000. B-3 has presented five points of error on behalf of itself and Agent. We have concluded…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin AuthorityTexas Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Missouri Pacific Railroad v. American StatesmanTexas Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Coastal Plains Development Corp. v. Micrea, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1978
  4. City Products Corp. v. BermanTexas Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Hall v. HardTexas Supreme Court · 1960

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. LA & N INTERESTS, INC. v. FishCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1993
  2. Neary v. Mikob Properties, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2011
  3. Terry v. Allied Bancshares, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API