Legal Security Life Insurance Co. v. Trevino
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Life Partners, Inc. (Tex. App. 2007)
- Time Housing Corp. v. Nunez (Tex. App. 1984)
- Gable v. Wood (Tex. App. 1981)
- Southern County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ochoa (Tex. App. 2000)
- Herfort v. Hargrove (Tex. App. 1980)
- Ally Financial, Inc. v. Stevenson (Mont. 2017)
- Padre Island Investment Corp. v. Sorbera (Tex. App. 1984)
- General Electric Credit Corp. v. Gutierrez (Tex. App. 1984)
- ABC Truck Rental & Leasing Co. v. Southern County Mutual Insurance Co. (Tex. App. 1983)
- FDI Investment Corp. v. S.S.G. Investments (Tex. App. 1983)
- United States Steel Corp. v. Fiberglass Specialties, Inc. (Tex. App. 1982)
- First Title Co. of Corpus Christi v. Cook (Tex. App. 1981)
- Mile High Equipment Co. v. Rider (Tex. App. 1981)
- Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Altreche (Tex. App. 1980)
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
This case involves an appeal from a plea of privilege in a suit brought under the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann., § 17.01, et seq. The decision of the court of civil appeals conflicts with the decision in Moore v. White, 587 S.W.2d 549 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1979, no writ), giving this Court jurisdiction pursuant to Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat.Ann. art. 1728(2).
Conflict with Moore v. White was not alleged in petitioner’s original application for writ of error, and the application for writ of error was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. John Farrell Lumber Co. v. Wood, 400 S.W.2d 307 (Tex. 1966). Petitioner has raised the conflict in its motion for rehearing. Consequently, the prior order dismissing the application for writ of error is withdrawn, and the motion for rehearing is granted.
The court of civil appeals held herein that in a suit under the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act venue is proper pursuant to Section 17.56, as amended in 1977, in a county in which the defendant “has done business” where the venue fact proved is the single transaction which is the basis of the suit. We agree.
Accordingly, the application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.