§Why CasetextPricing

Culbertson v. Luxottica Retail North America Inc. et al

REPLY

13 Cited authorities

  1. Brooklyn Bank v. O'Neil

    324 U.S. 697 (1945)   Cited 1,711 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding right to liquidated damages under Fair Labor Standards Act nonwaivable

  2. Wal-Mart Stores v. Sturges

    52 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. 2001)   Cited 427 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when two parties are competing for a business interest to which neither has superior entitlement, a cause of action for tortious interference cannot arise from merely competitive conduct, even if that conduct is "unfair"

  3. Lawrence v. CDB Services, Inc.

    44 S.W.3d 544 (Tex. 2001)   Cited 109 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that pre-injury agreements to release common-law claims did not violate public policy

  4. DaimlerChrysler Motors Co. v. Manuel

    362 S.W.3d 160 (Tex. App. 2012)   Cited 78 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff appropriately relied on yardstick method where plaintiff's business was new and plaintiff relied upon profits of closely comparable businesses that were also owned and operated by plaintiff

  5. Head v. U.S. Inspect DFW, Inc.

    159 S.W.3d 731 (Tex. App. 2005)   Cited 77 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding limitation of liability clauses to be enforceable if not unconscionable or otherwise contrary to public policy

  6. Hand v. Stevens Transport

    83 S.W.3d 286 (Tex. App. 2002)   Cited 40 times
    Noting that doctrine is to be used "sparingly" and only in instances where ignorance of limitations period is excusable

  7. AIRLINK COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. OWL WIRELESS, LLC

    Case No. 3:10 CV 2296 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 20, 2011)   Cited 12 times
    Holding lost profits were barred as consequential damages because they “were contingent upon third-party agreements” and not directly tied to the relevant contract

  8. Stewart v. Langdon

    No. 02-09-232-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 26, 2010)   Cited 3 times

    No. 02-09-232-CV DELIVERED: August 26, 2010. Appealed from the 355th District Court of Hood County. PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPINION See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. LEE ANN DAUPHINOT, Justice. Appellant Lindon M. Stewart appeals from the summary judgment granted in favor of Appellees Joseph S. Langdon and Karen Langdon. In four issues, Appellant argues that the trial court erred by granting Appellees' cross-motion for summary judgment, by denying his motion for summary

  9. Castellow v. Swiftex Manufacturing Corp.

    33 S.W.3d 890 (Tex. App. 2000)   Cited 7 times

    No. 03-00-00287-CV. Filed December 7, 2000. Rehearing Overruled January 19, 2001 Appeal from the District Court of Bastrop County, Texas; 21st Judicial District No. 22,990, Honorable Harold R. Towslee, Judge Presiding. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Derek L. Davis, Byrd Davis, Eisenberg, L.L.P., Austin, for appellant. Jeffrey A. Hagleman, Martin Associates, P.C., Austin, for appellee. Before Chief Justice ABOUSSIE, Justices B. A. SMITH and PATTERSON. BEA ANN SMITH, Justice. Appellant Helen F. Castellow sued

  10. Section 406.033 - Common-Law Defenses; Burden of Proof

    Tex. Lab. Code § 406.033   Cited 183 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Emphasizing that "from its inception, participation in the Act has been voluntary."

  11. Section 41.004 - Factors Precluding Recovery

    Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.004   Cited 96 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Requiring more than nominal damages to be awarded before exemplary damages can be awarded

  12. Section 17.42 - Waivers: Public Policy

    Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.42   Cited 53 times
    Permitting a waiver "of the provisions of this subchapter" provided that it is in writing and signed by the consumer, the consumer is not in a significantly disparate bargaining position, and the consumer is represented by legal counsel in acquiring the goods and services

  13. Section 351.408 - Control of Optometry

    Tex. Occ. Code § 351.408   Cited 8 times

    (a) This section and Sections 351.602(c)(2), 351.603(b), 351.604(3), and 351.605 shall be liberally construed to prevent manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers of ophthalmic goods from controlling or attempting to control the professional judgment, manner of practice, or practice of an optometrist or therapeutic optometrist. (b) In this section, "control or attempt to control the professional judgment, manner of practice, or practice of an optometrist or therapeutic optometrist" includes: (1)