Cimarron Hydrocarbons Corp. v. Carpenter
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DAVID F. FARRIS, Justice (Retired).
The impending issues in this case are two: whether or not the rule in Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines Inc., 134 Tex. 388, 133 S.W.2d 124 (1939) applies when the adverse party fails to timely respond to a summary judgment motion, and if Crad-dock applies, has the appellant in this case sufficiently proved all three of the Crad-dock elements. We hold that Craddock applies and that appellant proved all three Craddock elements. We reverse and remand.
Appellant, Cimarron Hydrocarbons Corporation, contracted with appellees for their services on a new well. A…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1939
- Gulbenkian v. PennTexas Supreme Court · 1952
- Strackbein v. PrewittTexas Supreme Court · 1984
- Martin v. Martin, Martin & Richards, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1999
- Jackson v. Mares, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1991
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Carpenter v. Cimarron Hydrocarbons Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 2002
- Cimarron Hydrocarbons Corp. v. Carpenter, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2004
- West v. MAINTENANCE TOOL & SUPPLY CO., INC., Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2002
- Jaime Soto v. General Foam & Plastics Corp., Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)2014
- Richards v. AMERICAN NAT. PROPERTY AND CAS., Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)2006
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.