Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co.

26 citing decisions · 24 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.

• Primary Media Group, Inc. v. LT Ranch Properties, LLC2026-06-25
  …l on a traditional motion for summary judgment, the moving party must prove that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(1); Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex. 1985). 22 In a declaratory-judgment action, the trial “court may award costs and reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees as are equitable and just.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 37.009; State & Cnty. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. ex rel. So. United Gen. Agency of Tex. v. Walker, 228 S.…
• Galvin B. Kennedy v. the City of Texas City2026-06-25
  …Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, pet. denied). In deciding whether a disputed, material fact issue precludes summary judgment, evidence favorable to the non-movant will 10 be taken as true. Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548–49 (Tex. 1985). Every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the non-movant and any doubts must be resolved in the non-movant’s favor. Id. at 549. Notice Requirements In his first issue, Kennedy argues that the municipal court’s orders declaring the property a nuisance and authorizing it…
• Tyrice Holcomb v. XPROUSA Moshin, LLC2026-06-04
  …gment, the movant has the burden to demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is 5 entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); 2 Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex. 1985). For a traditional motion for summary judgment, the movant satisfies its burden by conclusively negating at least one element of the nonmovant’s cause of action or proving all elements of the movant’s cause of action or affirmative defense. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(a), (c); Stanfield v. Neubaum, 494 S.W.3d 90, 96 (Tex. 201…
• Plains Pipeline v. Arrowhead Gulf Coast Holdings2026-05-16
  …egotiated asset-purchase agreement."). 3 A party moving for traditional summary judgment must demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. TEX. R. CIv. P. 166a(c); Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex. 1985); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Xerox State & Local Sols., Inc., 663 S.W.3d 569, 576 (Tex. 2023). The evidence favoring the non-movant is taken as true and every reasonable inference from the evidence is indulged in the non-movant's favor. Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 548-49; Montgomery v. Kennedy, 669 S.W.2d 309, 311 (Tex. 1984). "When a c…
• Brian Schulz v. Progressive Insurance2026-05-14
  …nmovant will be taken as true. Every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the nonmovant and any doubts resolved in the nonmovant’s favor. See, e.g., D. Houston, Inc. v. Love, 92 S.W.3d 450, 454 (Tex. 2002) (citing Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548–49 (Tex. 1985)); Brazda v. Suretec Ins. Co., No. 01-21-00482-CV, 2022 WL 3363190, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 16, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.). 6 Schulz did not identify the alleged defects in service of the summary judgment motion or notice of submission in his summary judgment response and he does not do…
• Bulah Marie Garrett, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Lyndell Ray Garrett, Deceased; Lisa Garrett; And Shelly Garrett v. Wal-Mart S2026-03-26
  …. of DeSoto, Tex., Inc. v. Mason, 143 S.W.3d 794, 803 (Tex. 2004)). “Foreseeability means that the actor, as a person of ordinary intelligence, should have anticipated the dangers that his negligent act created for others.” Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 549–50 (Tex. 1985). However, once an actor has created a dangerous situation, foreseeability does not require that the actor anticipate the “precise manner in which injury will occur.” Travis v. City of Mesquite, 830 S.W.2d 94, 98 (Tex. 1992). Generally, the criminal conduct of a third party is considered to be a “superseding cause” tha…
• Motiva Enterprises, LLC v. Tyler Whitmire2026-03-26
  …ary judgment.” Brownlee v. Brownlee, 665 S.W.2d 111, 112 (Tex. 1984). In determining whether there is a disputed material fact issue precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the nonmovant will be taken as true. Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., Inc., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex. 1985). We review the summary judgment record “in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, indulging every reasonable inference and resolving any doubts against the motion.” City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 824 (Tex. 2005). Analysis Was there a fact issue about when the MSA was…
• Hawkins2026-02-23
  …(3) the violation was without legal justification or excuse; and (4) the violation proximately caused the injury.” Sisley v. Rowland Truck Lines, No. 3:23-CV-299, 2025 WL 3050065, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2025) (citing Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., Inc., 690 S.W.2d 546, 549 (Tex. 1985)). This theory fails, too. Several courts considering whether to extend negligence per se liability under state law for alleged FDCPA violations—including of § 1692g—have declined to do so. See, e.g., Bruce v. Nationstar Mortg., No. 3:13- CV-3019-M-BH, 2015 WL 728028, at…
• Kalkan2026-02-07
  …uted material fact precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the non-movant will be taken as true. [] Every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the non-movant and any doubts resolved in its favor.” Nixon v. Prop. Mgmt. Co., Inc., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548–49 (1985). The Defendants argue four purported genuine issues of material fact exist as to RKR’s breach of Guaranty claim: (i) whether Dr. Kalkan signed the Company Agreements on behalf of himself and on behalf of KCL, (ii) whether a prior state-court TRO prevented the Defendants from being able to enter into the Company Agreeme…
• Madina Petroleum, LLC v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.2026-02-05
  …999); TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c). The party moving for summary judgment has the burden to prove by summary judgment evidence that “no material fact issue exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id.; Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., Inc., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex. 1985). “The movant must establish its right to summary judgment on the issues expressly presented to the trial court by conclusively proving all elements of the movant's cause of action or defense as a matter of law.” Id. (citing Walker v. Harris, 924 S.W.2d 375, 377 (Tex. 1996). We review a summary judgment de novo. Dou…
• Big Creek Construction, LTD. v. Jim Sinkule, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Brent Sinkule, Carlos Cross, Individually as Parent and Nex2026-01-29
  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.
• Wendy Hernandez v. Saul Islas2025-12-31
  …t raises a fact issue. Walker v. Harris, 924 S.W.2d 375, 377 (Tex. 1996). In determining whether there is a disputed material fact issue precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the non-movant will be taken as true. Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548–49 (Tex. 1985). We review the summary-judgment record “in the light most favorable to the non[-]movant, indulging every reasonable inference and resolving any doubts against the motion.” City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 824 (Tex. 2005); see also Mosaic Baybrook One, L.P. v. Simien, 674 S.W.3d 234, 252 (Tex. 2…
• City of Houston v. Jose Torres2025-12-31
  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.
• Isreal Perez v. Flagship Credit Acceptance, LLC2025-11-24
  …661 (Tex. 2005). To prevail on a summary judgment motion, the movant must demonstrate that no genuine issues of material fact exist and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c); Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., Inc., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex. 1985). A movant for summary judgment must conclusively prove all elements of its cause of action as a matter of law. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c); Rockwall Commons Assoc., Ltd. v. MRC Mortg. Grantor Trust I, 331 S.W.3d 500, 505 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010, no pet.). If ordinary minds could not differ as to the conclusion to be drawn from…
• City Choice Group v. TMC Grand Blvd Land Co.2025-11-08
  …III. LEGAL STANDARD ¶11 A party moving for traditional summary judgment must demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c); Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex. 1985); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Xerox State & Local Sols., Inc., 663 S.W.3d 569, 576 (Tex. 2023). The evidence favoring the non-movant is taken as true and every reasonable inference from the evidence is indulged in the non-movant’s favor. Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 548–49; Montgomery v. Kennedy, 669 S.W.2d 309, 311 (Tex. 1984). “When…
• Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund, LP and Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund II, LP v. Primexx Energy Corporation, M. Christopher Doyle, Angelo Acconcia, B2025-10-16
  …e standards for reviewing summary judgment under rule 166a(c) are well established. See Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. 5 Turn–Key moved for partial summary judgment on Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548–49 (Tex.1985); Orozco v. Dallas Morgan's claims for (1) breach of the JVA; (2) breach Morning News, Inc., 975 S.W.2d 392, 394 (Tex.App.-Dallas of the duty of loyalty; (3) usurpation of partnership 1998, no pet.). We review a summary judgment de novo to opportunity; (4) wrongful foreclosure; (5) unr…
• United Operations, LLC v. Edge Finance, LLC2025-08-28
  …015). The movant for a traditional motion for summary judgment has the burden to establish that no genuine issues of material fact exist, and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex. 1985). If the moving party produces evidence entitling it to a summary judgment, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to present evidence that raises a material fact issue. Walker v. Harris, 924 S.W.2d 375, 377 (Tex. 1996). In deciding whether there is a disputed material fact issue precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable…
• Glenn Eric Lilly v. Michael Scott Weisinger2025-08-28
  …ence that raises a fact issue. Walker v. Harris, 924 S.W.2d 375, 377 (Tex. 1996). In determining whether there is a disputed material fact issue precluding summary judgment, we take evidence favorable to the nonmovant as true. Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548–49 (Tex. 1985). We review the 11 summary judgment record “in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, indulging every reasonable inference and resolving any doubts against the motion.” City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 824 (Tex. 2005) (citations omitted); see also Mosaic Baybrook One,…
• Ling Huang v. John Hackbarth2025-08-21
  …The movant for a traditional motion for summary judgment has the burden to establish that no genuine issues of material fact exist, and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., Inc., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex. 1985). If 14 the moving party produces evidence entitling the movant to a summary judgment, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to present evidence that raises a material fact issue. Walker v. Harris, 924 S.W.2d 375, 377 (Tex. 1996). In deciding whether there is a disputed material fact…
• Rebecca Ayala v. Zak Capital, LLC2025-08-21
  …With respect to a traditional motion for summary judgment, the movant has the burden to demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex. 1985). As for a no-evidence summary judgment motion, “a properly filed no-evidence motion shifts the burden to the nonmovant to present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact supporting each element 6 Specifically, her first issue states: “A person can establish title to land under constitutional homestea…
• Foday S. Fofanah and Hawa Fofanah v. Rockwall Rental Properties2025-08-20
  …22 (Tex. App.—Austin 1994, writ dism’d w.o.j.).............. 19 Mustang Pipeline Co. v. Driver Pipeline Co., 134 S.W.3d 195 (Tex. 2004).................................................................... 17 Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1985).................................................................. 7, 8 Pathfinder Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Great W. Drilling, Ltd., 574 S.W.3d 882 (Tex. 2019).................................................................... 16 Peralta v. Heights Medical Ctr., Inc., 485 U.S. 80, 108 S. Ct. 896 (1988)......................…
• Dalia Lopez v. Camron R. Larochelle and Casey Butler2025-08-14
  …espect to a traditional motion for summary judgment, the movant has the burden to demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., Inc., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex. 1985). A plaintiff is entitled to summary No hearing was conducted on Larochelle and Butler’s motion for summary 6 judgment on their attorney’s fees. 7 In her opening appellate brief, Lopez repeatedly references the “no-evidence summary judgment” when discussing her second issue, although it appears from…
• University of Texas at Arlington v. James McMerchant2025-07-11
  …, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986)………………………………………………………..16 Elliott-Williams Co. v. Diaz, 9 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. 1999)………………………………………………….16 Centeq Realty, Inc. v. Siegler, 899 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. 1995)…………………………………...………16, 17 Nixon v. Mr. Property Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1985)……………………………………………….17 Park Place Hosp. v. Estate of Milo, 990 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. 1999)……………………………………………….17 Lear Sieglar, Inc. v. Perez, 5 819 S.W.2d 470 (Tex. 1991)……………………………………………….17 Case Corp. v. Hi-Class Bus. Sys. of Am., Inc., 184 S.W.3d 760 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied)…………………..…
• Werner Enterprises, Inc. and Shiraz A. Ali v. Jennifer Blake, Individually and as Next Friend for Nathan Blake, and as Heir of the Estate of Zackery B2025-06-27
  …); Greater Hous. Transp. Co. v. Philips, 801 S.W.2d 523, 526–27 (Tex. 1990) (examining the record to conclude that the injury was not foreseeable); Mellon Mortg. Co. v. Holder, 5 S.W.3d 654, 657 (Tex. 1999) (plurality op) (same); Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 550–51 (Tex. 1985) (examining the record to conclude that a material fact question exists on foreseeability). 24 Hous. Lighting & Power Co. v. Brooks, 336 S.W.2d 603, 607 (Tex. 1960) (quoting City of Dallas v. Maxwell, 248 S.W. 667, 670 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1923 holding approved, judgm’t adopted)).…
• Tiffany Gonzalez v. Blanca Hinojos Sanchez D/B/A E&G Sanchez Trucking2025-06-26
  …S.W.2d 526, 528 (Tex. 1973)). “‘Foreseeability’ means that the actor, as a person of ordinary intelligence, should have anticipated the dangers that [her] negligent act created for others.” Travis, 830 S.W.2d at 98 (first citing Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 549–50 (Tex. 1985); and then citing Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 552 S.W.2d at 103). There may be more than one proximate cause of an injury. Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Perez, 819 S.W.2d 16 470, 471 (Tex. 1991). Further, the failure to keep a proper lookout may constitute a proximate cause of a collision if (1)…
• Jermaine Thomas v. Iron Horse Terminals, L.L.C.2025-06-19
  …(Tex. 2005). In reviewing a summary judgment, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and resolve any doubt in the non-movant’s favor. Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598, 601 (Tex. 2004); Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548- 49 (Tex. 1985). Analysis The movant on a traditional motion for summary judgment has the burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to 8 judgment as a matter of law. Hillis v. McCall, 602 S.W.3d 436, 43…