holding that the trial court did not err by granting a motion for directed verdict on the plaintiff‘s breach of fiduciary duty claim because there was no evidence that the defendants owed any fiduciary duties
How later courts described this case
- holding that the trial court did not err by granting a motion for directed verdict on the plaintiff‘s breach of fiduciary duty claim because there was no evidence that the defendants owed any fiduciary duties
- holding that no informal fiduciary relationship existed when plaintiff did not prove confidential relationship prior to and apart from contract giving rise to his lawsuit
- holding that party asserting affirmative defense must request findings in support thereof to avoid waiver
- “The elements of actual fraud are: (1) a false, material representation was made, (2) that was either known to be false when made or was made without knowledge of its truth, (3) that was intended to be acted upon, (4) that was relied upon, and (5) that caused injury.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disapproved on other grounds by Lee C. Ritchie v. Ann Caldwell Rupe, as Trustee for the Dallas Gordon Rupe, III 1995 Family Trust, 57 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 771 (2014)
187 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied), disapproved on other grounds by Ritchie v. Rupe, 443 S.W.3d 856
The opinion
CAYCE, C.J.
concurs in part and dissents in part without opinion. He would affirm the trial court's judgment in its entirety.