Legal Opinion

Hudson v. Wakefield

Texas Supreme Court

Decided January 26, 1983No. C-1485PublishedCited by 67 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KILGARLIN, Justice.

Petitioners, Robert Hudson and Andy Wright (hereinafter referred to as “Purchasers”) brought this suit to enforce specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property owned by Respondents, Marion and Jean Wakefield (hereinafter referred to as “Sellers”). The trial court granted Sellers’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the instrument on which specific performance was sought never attained the status of a contract because the check for earnest money was returned due to insufficient funds. The court of appeals affirmed. 635 S.W.2d 216. We reverse…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Spence v. . HamNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
  2. Schwarz-Jordan, Inc. of Houston v. Delisle Construction Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Cowman v. Allen Monuments, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1973
  4. Antwine v. ReedTexas Supreme Court · 1947
  5. Bowles v. FickasTexas Supreme Court · 1943

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

3Cited by67 opinions

  1. Hudson v. WakefieldTexas Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Criswell v. European Crossroads Shopping Center, Ltd.Texas Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Henry v. Masson, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2010
  4. Bartush-Schnitzius Foods Co. v. Cimco Refrigeration, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 2017
  5. Continental Dredging, Inc. v. De-Kaizered, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)2003

62 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