Legal Opinion
Holland v. Hayden
Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)
Decided July 20, 1995No. 14-93-00875-CVPublishedCited by 54 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
EDELMAN, Justice.
Frank T. Holland appeals the damages awarded against him in a legal malpractice action on the grounds that: (1) attorneys fees were awarded twice; (2) lost profits damages were speculative; and (3) the award of both punitive damages and Deceptive Trade Practice Act (“DTPA”) 1 damages was improper. We affirm as modified below.
Appellees Conrad and Russell Hayden 2 sued appellant and his legal assistant, Leo StakemiUer, 3 for damages caused by appellant’s failure to answer a lawsuit filed against appeUees, and his subsequent failure to overturn the resulting default…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Holt Atherton Industries, Inc. v. HeineTexas Supreme Court · 1992
- Birchfield v. Texarkana Memorial HospitalTexas Supreme Court · 1987
- Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Teletron Energy Management, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1994
- Best v. Ryan Auto Group, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1990
- Boyce Iron Works, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1988
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by54 opinions
- American Rice, Inc. v. Producers Rice Mill, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2008
- Vingcard A.S. v. Merrimac Hospitality Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 2001
- Coastal Conduit & Ditching, Inc. v. Noram Energy Corp., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2000
- Operation Rescue-National v. Planned Parenthood of Houston & Southeast Texas, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)1997
- Ortiz v. Collins, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2006
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.