Coker v. Coker

26 citing decisions · 19 quoted from the citing opinion itself

Where each one reaches back.

Every passage below is lifted verbatim out of the citing opinion, with the citation itself highlighted. Nothing here is a summary and nothing is generated — it is what the later court actually wrote.

• Insight Investments, LLC v. Echo DCL, LLC2026-03-11
  …ation. Echo focuses on a single word, “beneficial,” while ignoring the phrase “[I]con’s claims against [United] arising under [the subcontract].” See Dkt. 175-7 at 1. Echo cannot pick and choose which words have effect and which do not. See Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983) (explaining that “courts should examine and consider the entire writing in an effort to harmonize and give effect to all the provisions of the contract so that none will be rendered meaningless”). Insight never assigned its own claims, beneficial or otherwise. Again, it assigned “[I]con’s claims against [United].…
• Signet Maritime Corporation v. International Shipbreaking Limited, LLC2026-03-05
  …“This interpretation is supported by consideration of the contract as a whole.” ROC- Houston, P.A. v. Parameswaran, No. 01-22-00613-CV, 2024 WL 3762479, at *9 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 13, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.); see Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983) (“No single provision taken alone will be given controlling effect; rather, all the provisions must be considered with reference to the whole instrument.”). As Signet emphasizes, the contract provides that it is “[n]on-cancellable” and that “[n]o termination is allowed.” (Docket Entry No. 28-1 at 3). These clauses, at…
• Takata2026-02-27
  …ertain the parties’ intent expressed within the four corners of the document. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995). The Court must harmonize the entire instrument by considering every provision. Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983). A term in a contract is ambiguous if its meaning is susceptible to 1 The price list provides rates for: Senior Project Manager, Project Manager, Operations Manager, Health/ Safety Office, Electronics/Equipment Supervisor, Electronics/Equipment Technician, Environmental Supervisor, Environmental Technician,…
• ORB Energy Co.2025-12-15
  …unclear. Under Texas law, “[w]hether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the court to decide by looking at the contract as a whole in light of the circumstances present when the contract was entered.” Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 394 (Tex. 1983). Courts “interpret contract language according to its plain, ordinary, and generally accepted meaning unless the instrument directs otherwise.” Pathfinder Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Great W. Drilling, Ltd., 574 S.W.3d 882, 888 (Tex. 2019) (citation modified). However, “[c]ontext is certainly a permissible indicator of…
• Barona2025-12-12
  …rms of an insurance policy are clear and unambiguous a court may not vary those terms.” Jd. “A contract .. . is ambiguous when its meaning is uncertain and doubtful or it is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning.” Jd. (quoting Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983)). In this case, the insurance policy between State Farm and the Plaintiff clearly outlines the many exclusions to the policy coverage. (Doc. No. 15-1). As the general rule, the policy states that “{State Farm] insure[s] for accidental direct physical loss to Covered Property.” (d.). Nevertheless, this gener…
• Rostan Solutions, LLC v. Corpus Christi Independent School District2025-09-30
  …erson & Sharp, PC, 919 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, writ denied)). When interpreting a contract “the primary concern of the court is to ascertain the true intentions of the parties as expressed in the instrument.” Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983). The written contract “alone will be deemed to express the intention of the parties.” Sun Oil Co. (Del.) v. Madeley, 626 S.W.2d 726, 728 (Tex. 1981). In determining the true intent of the parties “courts should examine and consider the entire writing in an effort to harmonize and give effect to all the provisions of th…
• Navarro2025-09-03
  …can be given a certain or definite meaning or interpretation, it is not ambiguous, and a court should construe the contract as a matter of law. See United States v. Fid. & Deposit Co., 10 F.3d 1150, 1152 (5th Cir. 1994). See also Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983) (mandating that unambiguous provisions appearing in a contract must be given the plain meaning of their terms); City of Pinehurst v. Spooner Addition Water Co., 432 S.W.2d 515, 518 (Tex. 1968) (noting that absent ambiguity, “the construction of the written instrument is a question of law for the Court”). A fact issue arise…
• Monocoque Diversified Interests, LLC v. USA Jet Airlines, Inc.2025-09-02
  The citing opinion is in this library and the link is real, but the passage could not be quoted: this decision is named there in a short form, in a parallel reporter, or in text that came through OCR imperfectly. Recorded as unquoted rather than dropped.
• Karahogitis2025-08-07
  …unambiguous “if it can be given a definite or certain legal meaning.” J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223, 229 (Tex. 2003). “Whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the court to decide . . .” Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 394 (Tex. 1983). The breach of contract claim refers to alleged non-payments from the Amended Termination Agreement, signed on July 20, 2023, relating to Karahogitis’s termination with TP Greece. Karahogitis first signed a termination agreement on December 31, 2022, which terminated the service ag…
• Capitol Aggregates, Inc. v. IPEC, Inc.2025-05-08
  …mages fall under the category of consequential damages and are barred. Capitol contends they are direct damages and are not. It is a basic premise of contract interpretation that unambiguous contracts are construed as a matter of law. Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393–94 (Tex. 1983). When a contract is un- ambiguous, “the court must enforce it as written.” Transcon. Gas Pipeline Corp. v. Texaco, Inc., 35 S.W.3d 658, 665 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). In construing the con- tract, the Court attempts to ascertain the parties' true intent “as expressed in the instrument.” Nat'l Union…
• Hunter2025-04-10
  The citing opinion is in this library and the link is real, but the passage could not be quoted: this decision is named there in a short form, in a parallel reporter, or in text that came through OCR imperfectly. Recorded as unquoted rather than dropped.
• Valentine2025-04-09
  …[i]f the contract’s language can be given a certain or definite legal meaning or interpretation, the contract is not ambiguous, and the Court will construe it as a matter of law. See Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983). Deciding whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the Court. See J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223, 229 (Tex. 2003). But, if the contract is subject to two or more reasonable interpretations after applying the p…
• DiBassie2025-03-31
  …two or more reasonable interpretations after applying the pertinent rules of construction, the contract is ambiguous, creating a fact issue on the parties’ intent.” J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223, 229 (Tex. 2003).; see also Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393–94 (Tex. 1983) (“A contract . . . is ambiguous when its meaning is uncertain and doubtful or it is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning.”). When a contract is ambiguous, the Court may consider the parties’ interpretations and admit extraneous parol evidence to determine the true meaning of the instrument. National Union Fi…
• Hunter2025-03-20
  …eed, L.L.P., 22 S.W.3d 857, 862 (Tex. 2000); see also In re Davenport, - 10 - 522 S.W.3d 452, 457-58 (Tex. 2017); Kern v. Sitel Corp., 517 F.3d 306, 309 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983)). Under Hunter’s security interest theory, NFCU breached the Agreement by failing to use Hunter’s individual or joint share accounts to pay all of part of his delinquency. But under the unambiguous terms of the Agreement, that supposed omission does not constitute a failure “to perform or tender performance as contractually…
• Myer2025-01-22
  …Court must interpret the PreNup as a matter of law. 29, | Under Texas law the PreNup is to be interpreted under the terms for interpretation of any contract according to the intentions of the parties as expressed in the agreement. In Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983), the Texas Supreme Court established the rules for construction of the PreNup as follows, “If the written instrument is so worded that it can be given a certain or definite legal meaning or court will construe the contract as a matter of law.” (Citations omitted.) The Texas Supreme Court further stated, “Whether a contract…
• Corval Builders & Erectors, Inc2024-09-30
  …). But this strict-construction rule applies only if the policy is ambiguous. Sharp, 115 F.3d at 1261. Whether an insurance policy is ambiguous is a question of law. Nat’l Union Fire Ins., 907 S.W.2d at 520 (Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 394 (Tex. 1983)). “The fact that the parties disagree as to coverage does not create an ambiguity, nor may extrinsic evidence be admitted for the purpose of creating an ambiguity.” Sharp, 115 F.3d at 1261 (citing Nat’l Union Fire Ins., 907 S.W.2d at 520). A court first examines a policy’s plain language, and 4 The Parties agree that…
• National Union Fire Insurance Co of Pittsburgh PA v. RealPage Inc2024-09-05
  The citing opinion is in this library and the link is real, but the passage could not be quoted: this decision is named there in a short form, in a parallel reporter, or in text that came through OCR imperfectly. Recorded as unquoted rather than dropped.
• Mathews2024-06-20
  The citing opinion is in this library and the link is real, but the passage could not be quoted: this decision is named there in a short form, in a parallel reporter, or in text that came through OCR imperfectly. Recorded as unquoted rather than dropped.
• Pamela Dubier, as Trustee of the Pamela Joy Dubier 2011 Revocable Trust v. Triangle Capital Properties LLC2024-06-05
  …ous contract must be interpreted by the court as a matter of law. Nettye Engler Energy, LP v. BlueStone Nat. Res. II, LLC, 639 S.W.3d 682, 690 (Tex. 2022); Cmty. Health Sys. Pro. Servs. Corp. v. Hansen, 525 S.W.3d 671, 681 (Tex. 2017) (citing Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983)); see Kinsale Ins. Co. v. Flyin’ Diesel Performance & Offroad, L.L.C., 99 F.4th 821, 827 (5th Cir. 2024) (quoting Mosaic Baybrook One, L.P. v. Simien, 674 S.W.3d 234, 257 (Tex. 2023)). “When the controversy can be resolved by proper construction of an unambiguous document, rendition of summary judgment is appropriate.” Cmty…
• Stamps2024-05-15
  …S.W.2d 261, 264 (Tex. 1990). If a Settlement or Release Agreement is so worded that it can be given a certain or definite legal meaning or interpretation, then it is not ambiguous, and the court will construe the contract as a matter of law. Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983). “A release of a claim or cause of action extinguishes the claim or cause of action.” Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Page Petroleum, Inc., 853 S.W.2d 505, 508 (Tex. 1993). “To effectively release a claim, the releasing instrument must ‘mention’ the claim to b…
• Wyndham Properties II, Ltd. v. Buca Texas Restaurants, L.P.2024-05-02
  …. To determine whether a contract is unambiguous, a court applies established rules of construction to consider whether the language of a provision is uncertain and doubtful such that it is susceptible to more than one meaning. Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983); see Gonzalez v. Denning, 394 F.3d 388, 392 (5th Cir. 2004). “A contract is not ambiguous merely because the parties to an agreement proffer conflicting interpretations of a term.” Gonzalez, 394 F.3d at 392 (quoting Int’l Turbine Servs., Inc. v. VASP Brazilian Airlines, 278 F.3d 494, 497 (5th Cir. 2002…
• Vigce LLC v. Level Eleven LLC2024-05-01
  The citing opinion is in this library and the link is real, but the passage could not be quoted: this decision is named there in a short form, in a parallel reporter, or in text that came through OCR imperfectly. Recorded as unquoted rather than dropped.
• Alamo Intermediate II Holdings, LLC v. Birmingham Alamo Movies, LLC.2024-04-25
  …entire writing in an effort to harmonize and give effect to all the provisions of the contract so that none will be ren- dered meaningless.” Aland v. Faison Assocs., No. 3:97–CV–2482–P, 1999 WL 500228, at *5 (N.D.Tex. July 14, 1999) (citing Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983)); see also R & P Enters. v. LaGuarta, Gavrel & Kirk, Inc., 596 S.W.2d 517, 519 (Tex. 1980) (citing South- land Royalty Co. v. Pan Am. Petroleum Corp., 378 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Tex. 1964); Steeger v. Beard Drilling, 371 S.W.2d 684, 688 (Tex. 1963)). 3. Extrinsic Evidence…
• Huizar2024-04-02
  The citing opinion is in this library and the link is real, but the passage could not be quoted: this decision is named there in a short form, in a parallel reporter, or in text that came through OCR imperfectly. Recorded as unquoted rather than dropped.
• Rodriguez2024-03-30
  …Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. CBI Indus., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995)). “In construing a written contract, the primary concern of the court is to ascertain the true intentions of the parties as expressed in the instrument.” Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983). In determining this, “courts should examine and consider the entire writing in an effort to harmonize and give effect to all the provisions of the contract so that none will be rendered meaningless.” Id. 2 Neither Party disputes that Texas law applies. (emphasis in original). In examining the e…
• Paschal2024-03-28
  The citing opinion is in this library and the link is real, but the passage could not be quoted: this decision is named there in a short form, in a parallel reporter, or in text that came through OCR imperfectly. Recorded as unquoted rather than dropped.