Legal Opinion

Cooke v. Millard

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)

Decided February 6, 1992No. 01-92-00106-CVPublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

DUGGAN, Justice.

Cooke and others sued five defendants for negligence in the completion of an oil and gas well. Four of the five defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds that the suit was barred by limitations. Cooke asserted the discovery rule and the relation back doctrine. The fifth defendant, Unibar Drilling Fluids, Inc., did not move for summary judgment. On February 5, 1990, precisely two years ago, the trial court granted all four defendants’ motions for summary judgment, signing a single order to that effect. Cooke’s claims against Unibar were left intact.

In March of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Johnson v. Fourth Court of AppealsTexas Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Ryland Group, Inc. v. White, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1986
  3. GREENBERG, BENSON, FISK AND FIELDER, PC v. Howell, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1984
  4. Jones v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1971
  5. Boswell, O'Toole, Davis & Pickering v. StewartCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1975

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. In Re Greenwell, Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)2005
  2. In Re Mission Consolidated Independent School District, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1999
  3. In Re Tasby, Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)2001
  4. Grant v. Wood, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1995
  5. Grant v. Wood, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1995

11 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