# Streber v. Hunter

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · August 4, 2000 · 221 F.3d 701

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9413977

## Case

- **Full name:** Tracy Parker STREBER; Et Al., Plaintiffs, Terry Parker Davis Delony, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. Edwin K. HUNTER; Et Al., Defendants, Edwin K. Hunter; Edwin K. Hunter, a Professional Law Corporation; T. Glynn Blazier; Timothy O’Dowd, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 4, 2000
- **Citations:** 221 F.3d 701; 55 Fed. R. Serv. 376; 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 18744; 2000 WL 1099387
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Jones
- **Judges:** Garza, Jones
- **Cited by:** 166 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9413977

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that personal jurisdiction in Texas was established where an attorney in Louisiana gave allegedly negligent advice in person at his Louisiana office to clients who resided in Texas regarding various tax laws because the attorney “purposely availed himself of Texas law …
- holding expert testimony on causation not required when expert testified that attorney’s tax advice was incorrect, thus establishing negligence and breach, and client testified that attorney’s advice not to settle tax dispute caused her specific financial losses
- holding that traditional notions of fair play and justice were not offended by requiring non-resident defendant to defend suit in Texas when defendant knew that his clienVplaintiff was Texas resident and that lawsuit arose out of defendant’s contacts with Texas
- concluding that Louisiana attorney “ ‘purposefully availed’ himself of Texas laws when he gave tax advice that he knew would be received by a Texas client, ... and thus had ‘minimum contacts’ ” with Texas
- holding that specific jurisdiction was proper where “at least some of the allegations forming the basis of this lawsuit arise out of [the defendant’s] contacts with Texas”

## Opinion text

*741 EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in this good opinion, emphasizing only the narrowness of our holding on DTPA liability. First, the statute was significantly amended with respect to attorneys after the events before us occurred; our opinion doesn’t bear on the amended law. Second, there was sufficient, if not overwhelming, evidence for the jury to find that actual misrepresentations not amounting to mere statements of legal opinion were made to the plaintiff. Third, I would not rely on the alleged undisclosed conflict of interest between the lawyers’ desire to capitalize on the mother’s lawsuit against Parker and the presumably less-legally-remunerative attempt by the daughters to make Parker pay their taxes. Not only were the clients fully aware of Parker’s financial condition, it also seems evident that mother and daughters were presenting a united front against Parker. There was no conflict of interest from the attorneys’ standpoint, rather, a misguided attempt at a pincer strategy.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9413977. Public record. Not legal advice.