Legal Opinion

Cimarron Hydrocarbons Corp. v. Carpenter

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided November 16, 2000No. 2-99-288-CVPublishedCited by 12 opinions

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

  1. Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1939
  2. Gulbenkian v. PennTexas Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Strackbein v. PrewittTexas Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Martin v. Martin, Martin & Richards, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Jackson v. Mares, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1991

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Carpenter v. Cimarron Hydrocarbons Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Cimarron Hydrocarbons Corp. v. Carpenter, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2004
  3. West v. MAINTENANCE TOOL & SUPPLY CO., INC., Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2002
  4. Jaime Soto v. General Foam & Plastics Corp., Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)2014
  5. 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.

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

Powered by the Exa API