Legal Opinion

Sutton v. Mankoff

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided February 22, 1996No. 2-95-064-CVPublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HOLMAN, Justice.

This is a summary judgment ease. Ruth and William Sutton filed suit alleging damages from deceptive trade practices and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants included Ronald M. Mankoff, three lawfirms in which he is a principal, and eight others. The trial court severed the plaintiffs’ cause against Mankoff and his three lawfirms, granting those defendants a summary judgment on the ground that all causes of action the plaintiffs asserted against the Mankoff defendants were barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm.

The Suttons present…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin AuthorityTexas Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Great American Reserve Insurance Co. v. San Antonio Plumbing Supply Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Centeq Realty, Inc. v. SieglerTexas Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Acker v. Texas Water CommissionTexas Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Harwell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Murphy v. CampbellTexas Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Hendricks v. Thornton, Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)1998
  3. Grace v. Duke, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2001
  4. Rice v. Louis A. Williams & Associates, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)2002
  5. Albert Alexander v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)2007

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

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

Powered by the Exa API