Fantastic Homes, Inc. v. Combs
Cases that cite this one
46 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Great Value Storage, LLC and World Class Capital Group. LLC v. Princeton Capital Corporation (Tex. App. 2023)
- Barrios v. Enterprise Leasing Co. (Tex. App. 2003)
- Humble Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Gomez (Tex. App. 2001)
- Gifford-Hill & Co., Inc. v. Wise County Appraisal Dist. (Tex. 1992)
- Deckard v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 1980)
- Exxon Co. v. Dalco Oil Co. (Tex. App. 1980)
- Willard Cox Jr., Will Cox, Inc. and Kevin Desormeaux D/B/A Talents Unlimited v. Kathleen Kimberlin (Tex. App. 2025)
- Brian W. Justice v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, on Behalf of the Registered Holders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I Trust 2007-AC2, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-AV2 (Tex. App. 2019)
- Sherman Moore, Individually and D/B/A S & S Security Inc. and George Adams v. Patriot Security Inc. (Tex. App. 2018)
- Laura Kathleen Fielding, Administrator of the Estate of Charles W. Hodge v. Janniece Tullos (Tex. App. 2018)
- Barrios, Horacio v. Enterprise Leasing Company of Houston (Tex. App. 2003)
- Hollingsworth v. City of Dallas (Tex. App. 1996)
- Roadside Stations, Inc. v. 7HBF, LTD. (Tex. App. 1995)
- Hill v. Herald-Post Pub. Co., Inc. (Tex. App. 1994)
- Horn v. Hedgecoke Insurance Agency (Tex. App. 1992)
- Ethicon, Inc. v. Martinez (Tex. App. 1992)
- Ethicon, Inc. v. Alma Martinez (Tex. App. 1992)
- Boyd v. Fuel Distributors, Inc. (Tex. App. 1990)
- Peters v. GIFFORD-HILL & CO., INC. (Tex. App. 1990)
- Foster v. Home Indemnity Co. (Tex. App. 1988)
- Trevathan v. State (Tex. App. 1987)
- Medina v. El Paso Machine & Steel Works, Inc. (Tex. App. 1987)
- Burton v. Texas Employment Commission (Tex. App. 1987)
- Johnson v. Levy (Tex. App. 1987)
- O'NEILL v. Startex Petroleum, Inc. (Tex. App. 1986)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
The trial court granted a take-nothing summary judgment against petitioners in their suit to recover damages from respondent under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, section 17.41, et seq., Tex.Bus. & Com. Code Ann. The court of civil appeals reversed this judgment and remanded the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. 584 S.W.2d 340.
We agree with the holding of the court of civil appeals that a non-movant needs no answer or response to a motion for summary judgment in order to urge on appeal that the movant’s proof was insufficient to establish as a matter of law the specific grounds relied on by the movant. City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, - S.W.2d -, 23 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 7 (Oct. 6, 1979).
The question as to whether intent to deceive is required. to establish a cause of action under sections 17.46(a) and 17.-50(a)(3) of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act was not properly brought before this Court. We, therefore, reserve judgment as to the correctness of that portion of the court of civil appeals’ opinion. The petitioner’s application for writ of error is Refused, No Reversible Error.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.