Cloyd v. Champion Home Builders

2 Citing cases

  1. Loomis v. Republic Nat. Bank of Dallas

    653 S.W.2d 75 (Tex. App. 1983)   Cited 14 times
    In Loomis, the court adopted the reasoning of the Ohio Supreme Court with regard to a note which was due "on demand, and if no demand is made, then on Dec. 1, 1922."

    Wilcox v. St. Mary's University, 531 S.W.2d 589, 592-93 (Tex. 1975). Although a motion for summary judgment does not shift the burden of proof imposed by the parties' pleadings, Cloyd v. Champion Home Builders Co., 615 S.W.2d 269, 271 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.), every reasonable inference is indulged in favor of the non-movant. Therefore, we must determine whether Republic established its right to recover as a matter of law.

  2. Mostek Corp. v. Chemetron Corp.

    642 S.W.2d 20 (Tex. App. 1982)   Cited 20 times
    Applying Illinois law

    Wilcox v. St. Mary's University, 531 S.W.2d 589, 592-93 (Tex. 1975). Although a motion for summary judgment does not shift the burden of proof imposed by the parties' own pleadings, Cloyd v. Champion Home Builders Co., 615 S.W.2d 269, 271 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.), every reasonable inference is indulged in favor of the non-movant. Accepting Mostek's allegations as true, Chemetron had the option of conclusively showing: 1) that a fact required to establish at least one element necessary to each of Mostek's causes of action did not exist, American Petrofina, 597 S.W.2d at 470; or, 2) conclusively showing that notwithstanding Mostek's ability to prove its claims, Chemetron was insulated from liability by some defense.