Legal Opinion
Tarrant County v. Chancey
Court of Appeals of Texas
Decided March 13, 1997No. 2-96-115-CVPublishedCited by 48 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DAY, Justice.
The trial court granted the motion of Tammy and John Chancey, appellees, for sanctions against appellant, Tarrant County, (“county”) and the county appeals. In two points of error the county argues that the trial court erred in granting the Chanceys’ motion for sanctions under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13 and section 10.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. TExR.Crv.P. 13 (“Rule 13”); Tex.Civ.PRAC. & Rem.Code Ann. § 10.001 (Vernon Supp.1997) (“Section 10.001”). We agree and vacate the trial court’s order imposing sanctions.
Summary of the Facts
Tammy Chancey…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- GTE Communications Systems Corp. v. TannerTexas Supreme Court · 1993
- Loftin v. MartinTexas Supreme Court · 1989
- Dyson Descendant Corp. v. Sonat Exploration Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1993
- Home Owners Funding Corp. of America v. Scheppler, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1991
- K Mart Corp. v. SandersonTexas Supreme Court · 1997
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- Mattly v. Spiegel, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2000
- Jimenez v. Transwestern Property Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)1999
- Save Our Springs Alliance, Inc. v. Lazy Nine Municipal Utility District Ex Rel. Board of Directors, Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)2006
- Texas-Ohio Gas, Inc. v. Mecom, Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)2000
- Falk & Mayfield L.L.P. v. Molzan, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)1998
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.