Legal Opinion

Dynegy Inc. v. Terry W. Yates, Individually, and Terry W. Yates, P.C.

Texas Supreme Court

Decided August 30, 2013No. 11-0541PublishedCited by 64 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Green

in which Chief Justice JEFFERSON, Justice HECHT, Justice JOHNSON, Justice WILLETT, Justice LEHRMANN, and Justice BOYD joined.

The statute of frauds’ suretyship provision provides that an oral promise “by one *640person to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another person” is generally unenforceable. See Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 26.01(a), (b)(2). Dynegy, Inc. contends that this provision bars the current suit because both the fraudulent inducement and breach of contract claims against it are based on an oral promise to an attorney to pay the attorney’s fees incurred by one of Dynegy’s…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Haase v. GlaznerTexas Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Woods v. William M. Mercer, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Cruz v. Andrews Restoration, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 2012
  4. Bratcher v. DozierTexas Supreme Court · 1961
  5. United States v. OlisCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2005

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

3Cited by64 opinions

  1. National Property Holdings, L.P. v. WestergrenTexas Supreme Court · 2015
  2. Albert G. Hill, Jr. v. Shamoun & Norman, LlpTexas Supreme Court · 2018
  3. Duradril, L.L.C. v. Dynomax Drilling Tools, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 2017
  4. Burrus v. ReyesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2017
  5. Wesdem v. Illinois Tool WorksCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2023

59 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