Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Big Dog Logistics, Inc. v. Strategic Impact Corp.

312 S.W.3d 122 (Tex. App. 2010)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Big Dog Logistics, Inc. v. Strategic Impact Corp.

6 Citing cases

  1. Rangel v. Rivera

    NO. 14-14-00623-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 18, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    We are not a fact finder and may not pass upon the witnesses' credibility or substitute our judgment for the jury's, even if the evidence would support a different result. Big Dog Logistics, Inc. v. Strategic Impact Corp., 312 S.W.3d 122, 135 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (citing Mar. Overseas Corp. v. Ellis, 971 S.W.2d 402, 407 (Tex. 1998)). Appellants suggest the abuse-of-discretion standard applies because they presented the factual-sufficiency challenge via a motion for new trial.

  2. Brasch v. Lane

    No. 01-09-01093-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 2, 2011)   Cited 7 times
    Concluding fact issue existed on intent-to-harm element where there was evidence suggesting that defendants filed lis pendens because they believed that their interest was threatened and that they were merely protecting their rights

    A jury found all defendants liable and the trial court rendered a money judgment against all defendants, Kirk, Lane, and the corporate defendants. The trial court later granted a motion to disregard a portion of the jury's verdict and issued an amended final judgment in November 2007. Big Dog Logistics, Inc. v. Strategic Impact Corp., 312 S.W.3d 122, 130 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied). The trial court held the corporate defendants liable to Brasch and Floudas for breach of contract, but Kirk and Lane were not individually liable.

  3. Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. v. Quintanilla

    No. 05-19-01331-CV (Tex. App. Oct. 17, 2022)   Cited 6 times
    Following elements presented by Oncor in an eviden- tiary sufficiency analysis without adopting the elements

    The jury was free to decide the weight to assign to each of the five nonexclusive factors listed in the jury charge. See Big Dog Logistics, Inc. v. Strategic Impact Corp., 312 S.W.3d 122, 136-37 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied).

  4. Tamimi Global Co. v. Kellogg Brown & Root, L.L.C.

    483 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. App. 2015)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Tamimi Global Co. v. Kellogg Brown & Root, L.L.C., 483 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.), a subcontractor of KBR that provided dining and utility services to military personnel contended that KBR breached a contractual termination-for-convenience clause.

    We are not a fact finder and may not pass upon the witnesses' credibility or substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder, even if the evidence would support a different result. Big Dog Logistics, Inc. v. Strategic Impact Corp., 312 S.W.3d 122, 135 (Tex.App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (citing Mar. Overseas Corp. v. Ellis, 971 S.W.2d 402, 407 (Tex.1998)). The trial court found that “[a]s a factual proposition,” KBR failed to meet its burden to prove its damages “flowed from Tamimi's breach at all.”

  5. Tamimi Global Co. v. Kellogg Brown & Root, L.L.C.

    NO. 14-13-00824-CV (Tex. App. Oct. 29, 2015)

    We are not a fact finder and may not pass upon the witnesses' credibility or substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder, even if the evidence would support a different result. Big Dog Logistics, Inc. v. Strategic Impact Corp., 312 S.W.3d 122, 135 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (citing Mar. Overseas Corp. v. Ellis, 971 S.W.2d 402, 407 (Tex. 1998)). The trial court found that "[a]s a factual proposition," KBR failed to meet its burden to prove its damages "flowed from Tamimi's breach at all."

  6. Nanda v. Huinker

    NUMBER 13-13-00615-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 24, 2015)   Cited 3 times

    Language showing the parties' assent to a particular agreement must be included within a written memorandum to satisfy the statute of frauds. Big Dog Logistics, Inc. v. Strategic Impact Corp., 312 S.W.3d 122, 133 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) (citing Osborne v. Moore, 247 S.W. 498, 498-500 (Tex. 1923); Birenbaum v. Option Care, Inc., 971 S.W.2d 497, 501 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997, pet. denied)). Evidence of mutual assent in written contracts generally consists of signatures of the parties and delivery with the intent to bind.