University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston v. Big Train Carpet of El Campo, Inc.
Tex.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026Galvin B. Kennedy v. the City of Texas City Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.]
- 2026Cris Lalonde and Vanessa Lalonde v. Tortuga Ranch NC, LLC, Vandrake Investments, LLC, and Premier Land Liquidators, LLC Tex. App.-San Antonio
- 2026Roxie Sue Shorter F/K/A Roxie Sue Wolf v. Coffield Family Properties, LTD. Tex. App.-Eastland
- 2026Joyce DeAnda v. Abbey Moor of Trophy Club Homeowners' Association, Inc., and Darrel Davis Tex. App.-Fort Worth
- 2024Freddy Wirt v. LaBelleCo Fab, LLC Tex. App.
- 2021National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Exxon Mobil Corporation Tex. App.
- 2020HB Aviation, LLC// Glenn Hegar, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts And Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General v. Glenn Hegar, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts And Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General// Cross-Appellee, HB Aviation, LLC Tex. App.
- 2019Michael Fallon, M.D. v. the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Craig Henderson as Officer for the Public Information for the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Tex. App.
- 2019Michael Fallon, M.D. v. the University of Texas MD Anderson Physician's Network Ans William Hyslop, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the University of Texas MD Anderson Physician's Network Tex. App.
- 2015Garrett Operators, Inc. v. City of Houston Tex. App.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT HOUSTON, Petitioner, v. BIG TRAIN CARPET OF EL CAMPO, INC., Respondent.
Attorneys
- Jim Mattox, Atty. Gen., Carey E. Smith and Patrick J. Feeney, Ass’t Atty. Gen., Austin, for petitioner.
- Randall D. Wilkins and Elton Brownsha-del, Nelson & Brownshadel, Houston, for respondent.
This is a summary judgment case. Big Train Carpet of El Campo sued the University of Texas Health Science Center for payment under its carpeting contract. The University counterclaimed for usury based on two late charges of 1.5 percent per month. As a usury defense, Big Train claimed that the charges were added as the result of a bona fide error by its president. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment for Big Train, and, in an unpublished opinion, the court of appeals affirmed. We reverse and remand only as to the University’s usury counterclaim.
The court of appeals, after indulging all inferences and resolving all doubts in favor of Big Train, concluded that Big Train had established its usury defense. Big Train, however, was the successful movant. The University, as the nonmov-ant, was entitled to have all reasonable inferences made and all doubts resolved in its favor. El Chico Corp. v. Poole, 732 S.W.2d 306 (Tex.1987). Under the correct standard of review, there is an issue of fact precluding summary judgment. City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.1979).
Because the court of appeals opinion conflicts with Clear Creek and El Chico, we grant the University’s application, and without hearing oral argument, a majority of the court reverses the court of appeals judgment as to the University’s usury counterclaim, and remands that claim for trial. TEX.R.APP.P. 133(b).