2001 Trinity Fund, LLC v. Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc.
Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)
1ConcurrenceCharles W. Seymore, Justice
I join sections IV.B., IV.C. IV.D., and IV.E. of Justice Frost’s Substitute Opinion (addressing issues pertaining to the quantum-meruit claim, the promissory-estoppel claim, attorney’s fees, and the appropriate appellate judgment). I write separately because I disagree with section IVA. of Justice Frost’s Substitute Opinion (the “plurality”) pertaining to appellant’s second issue. Specifically, I would hold, as a matter of law, the parties did not intend to continue the Barnett Shale Participation Agreement (“BSPA”) by using electronic communications, as prescribed under the Texas Uniform…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Coker v. CokerTexas Supreme Court · 1983
- Osterberg v. PecaTexas Supreme Court · 2000
- Herbert v. HerbertTexas Supreme Court · 1988
- Lenape Resources Corp. v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1996
- XCO Production Co. v. Jamison, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2006
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.