explaining Texas caselaw on Section 541.151’s predecessor established that “contractual privity or third[-]party beneficiary status is not required for standing to bring claims”
How later courts described this case
- explaining Texas caselaw on Section 541.151’s predecessor established that “contractual privity or third[-]party beneficiary status is not required for standing to bring claims”
- holding evidence legally and factually sufficient to support jury finding of “knowingly,” as required for award of treble damages under DTPA
- "[W]hen one makes a representation, new information must be disclosed when that new information makes the earlier representation misleading or untrue."
- plaintiff may recover in a separate suit for his reasonable and necessary expenses of the prior litigation
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SAM NUCHIA, Justice,
dissenting on rehearing.
While I vote to grant both motions for rehearing, I do not agree with the relief granted by the Court. I, therefore, respectfully dissent from the Court’s judgment for the reasons set out in my December 17, 2009 dissenting opinion on motion for en banc reconsideration.