Legal Opinion

Briones v. Solomon

Texas Supreme Court

Decided December 31, 1992No. D-1093PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

A demand for postjudgment interest arises from the judicial process rather than directly from a commercial or consumer transaction, and is therefore not a “charging” under the usury laws. George A. Fuller Co. v. Carpet Services, Inc., 823 S.W.2d 603, 605 (Tex.1992). The court of appeals rendered the correct judgment because respondent presented the point that there was no charging of usurious interest. We neither approve nor disapprove any portion of the court of appeals opinion. 805 S.W.2d 916. Petitioner’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. George A. Fuller Co. v. Carpet Services, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Solomon v. Briones, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1991

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hunt v. Baldwin, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2001
  2. Williams v. BellCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2013
  3. Felicia Williams, Individually D/B/A in the Urban City Investment Group v. Destry C. Bell, Sr., and Christ Temple of Deliverance Church of God in Christ, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2013