DeBakey v. Staggs
Cases that cite this one
31 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Latham v. Castillo (Tex. 1998)
- White Budd Van Ness Partnership v. Major-Gladys Drive Joint Venture (Tex. App. 1990)
- Burnap v. Linnartz (Tex. App. 2001)
- Willis v. Maverick (Tex. 1988)
- Streber v. Hunter (5th Cir. 2000)
- Castillo v. Latham (Tex. App. 1996)
- Thompson v. Vinson & Elkins (Tex. App. 1993)
- Melody Home Manufacturing Co. v. Barnes (Tex. 1987)
- Short v. Demopolis (Wash. 1984)
- Lorenzo Reyes Martinez v. Herbert C. Martinez, Real Estate Executives of Austin, LLC And Texas American Title Company D/B/A Independence Title Company (Tex. App. 2020)
- Holliday, W. David v. Weaver, Greg and Wendy Weaver (Tex. App. 2013)
- Guest v. Cochran (Tex. App. 1999)
- Ballesteros v. Jones (Tex. App. 1999)
- Rodriguez v. Klein (Tex. App. 1997)
- Wright v. Gundersen (Tex. App. 1996)
- Schlager v. Clements (Tex. App. 1996)
- Collin County v. Johnson, Coy, William Don Watson and Nadine Watson (Tex. App. 1996)
- Sample v. Freeman (Tex. App. 1994)
- Maple Run at Austin Municipal Utility District v. Armbrust & Brown, P.C. (Tex. App. 1992)
- Wilson v. Rice (Tex. App. 1991)
- Johnson v. DeLay (Tex. App. 1991)
- Robert J. Wilson, Individually and Robert J. Wilson & Associates, Inc. v. Bob Rice (Tex. App. 1991)
- Roberts v. Burkett (Tex. App. 1990)
- Heath v. Herron (Tex. App. 1987)
- Zidell v. Bird (Tex. App. 1985)
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
Respondents, Marilyn Sue Staggs, et al., plaintiffs in the trial court, recovered a judgment against petitioner, Douglas N. DeBakey, Esq., under the Deceptive Trade Practice-Consumer Protection Act. (D.T.P. A.), Section 17.41 et seq., of the Texas Business and Commerce Code Annotated, for *925 their damages caused by petitioner’s “unconscionable” actions committed in connection with his agreement to furnish the legal services necessary to change the name of a daughter of Mrs. Staggs by a prior marriage. The trial court found damages of $420.00, which amount was tripled and judgment rendered for the Staggs. The court of civil appeals reduced the amount of damages to the sum of $170.00 and affirmed the trial court judgment as modified. 605 S.W.2d 631.
We agree with the holding of the court of civil appeals that respondents were “consumers” as defined by the D.T.P.A., Section 17.45(4). No question is presented by this application as to the standard of care by which a legal malpractice claim is- to be determined, and we expressly reserve that question for future determination.
The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.