Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

1001 McKinney Ltd. v. Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Capital

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)

Decided March 16, 2006No. 14-04-00844-CVPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKem Thompson Frost, Justice

The statute of frauds bars any recovery by 1001 McKinney Ltd. (the “Borrower”) *31against Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Capital (the “Lender”)1 and Credit Suisse First Boston LLC2 (the “Lender’s Parent”) on the alleged oral contract, but not for the reasons stated in the majority opinion. The court correctly affirms the summary judgment in favor of the Lender and the Lender’s Parent (collectively, the “Credit Suisse Parties”) on the Borrower’s claims alleging breach of an alleged oral contract, statutory fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conspiracy, and promissory estoppel. The court…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Little v. Liquid Air Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1994
  2. Gustafson v. Alloyd Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
  3. Johnson v. Brewer & Pritchard, P.C.Texas Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Cincinnati Life Insurance Co. v. CatesTexas Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Ernst & Young, L.L.P. v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co.Texas Supreme Court · 2001

19 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