Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Affirmed.
West Headnotes
184 Fraud
184I Deception Constituting Fraud, and Liability Therefor
184k8 Fraudulent Representations
184k10 k. Matters of Fact or of Law. Most Cited Cases
Relief may be granted for misrepresentation as to point of law or of legal rights where there is fiduciary or
confidential relationship of trust between parties.
184 Fraud
184I Deception Constituting Fraud, and Liability Therefor
184k8 Fraudulent Representations
184k10 k. Matters of Fact or of Law. Most Cited Cases
Misrepresentations involving point of law will be considered misrepresentations of fact, and thus actionable, if they
were intended and understood as such.
184 Fraud
184I Deception Constituting Fraud, and Liability Therefor
184k8 Fraudulent Representations
184k10 k. Matters of Fact or of Law. Most Cited Cases
Bank representative's statements to beneficiary of letter of credit that scope of coverage of letter of credit could be
expanded by amending expiration date was representation concerning legal effect of amendment and thus not
actionable where both bank and beneficiary had access to legal counsel, neither had superior knowledge, and no
artifice or fraud was employed preventing the beneficiary from making an examination of the documents.
W. Mike Baggett, Winstead, McGuire, Sechrest & Minick, Pete Baker, Glandon, Erwin, Scarborough, Baker, Choate
& Arnot, Dallas, for respondents.
WALLACE, Justice.
This case concerns an irrevocable documentary letter of credit issued by Abilene National Bank in favor of Fina
Supply, Inc. Fina entered into an oil exchange agreement with Brio Petroleum, Inc. Abilene National Bank's letter of
credit No. 1342 was issued to assure Fina that it would receive payment for any excess shipments of oil made to
Brio as a part of their exchange agreement. When Fina attempted to draw under the letter of credit, its draft was
dishonored. Abilene National Bank sought a declaratory judgment that it was not liable to honor Fina's draft because
the presentment documents submitted did not strictly comply with the terms of the letter of credit. Fina then sued
Abilene National Bank for breach of contract, fraud, and for judicial reformation of the terms of the credit. These
actions were consolidated for trial, and upon the jury's verdict the court rendered its judgment that Fina recover $4.5
million actual damages and $6.5 million in exemplary damages on its fraud cause of action. The trial court also
entered an order reforming the terms of the letter of credit to cover exchange imbalances between Fina and Brio
through April 1982. Abilene National Bank appealed, and the court of appeals reversed and rendered judgment that
Fina take nothing. 706 S.W.2d 737. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Fina Supply and Brio Petroleum are in the business of acquiring oil for their affiliated refineries. Oil purchasing
patterns sometimes result in the acquisition by one company of oil which is located nearer to another company's
refinery. In October of 1981, Fina and Brio agreed to exchange stocks of oil in order to save transportation costs
with the idea of exchanging like amounts of oil. Imbalances in the amounts shipped between Fina and Brio were to
be made up by payments from one company to the other.
*539 At the request of Brio Petroleum, Abilene National Bank issued its letter of credit No. 1342 in favor of Fina on
September 28, 1981. Fina could receive payments from Abilene National Bank under the credit to cover exchange
imbalances which favored Brio upon presentment of its draft accompanied by certain presentment documents. The
credit payment under the letter of credit was authorized upon receipt of Fina's draft accompanied by:
1. copy of your commercial invoice covering approximately 124,000 barrels of Giddings type crude oil at a price of
$36.25 per barrel delivered through October 1981;
2. copy of pipeline statement or pipeline receipt evidencing delivery of approximately 124,000 barrels of Giddings
type crude oil to Brio Petroleum, Inc. via Exxon Pipeline, Raccoon Bend Station;
3. signed statement by an authorized representative of Fina Supply, Inc., certifying that the amount drawn hereunder
represents balances due from Brio Petroleum, Inc.
This original letter of credit covered exchange imbalances during the month of October 1981. Fina and Brio
negotiated an extension of the letter of credit to cover imbalances during the months of November and December of
1981. Mr. Scott McEwen, a Fina representative, contacted Kathy Kiser, a vice president of Abilene National Bank in
charge of that institution's letter of credit operations, regarding amendment of the letter of credit. The first
amendment extended the coverage of the letter of credit to include exchange imbalances in November and
December of 1981, and also extended the expiration date to January 31, 1982.
In January, February and March of 1982, Fina and Brio negotiated three more amendments to the letter of credit.
Kathy Kiser prepared the second amendment which extended the expiration date of the letter of credit to February
26, 1982, with all other terms and conditions to remain the same. Steve Reese, another Fina representative,
contacted Kathy Kiser to discuss the variation between this amendment and the first amendment which made the
extended coverage for the months of November and December 1981 explicit. Fina maintains that Kathy Kiser
assured Reese that further exchange imbalances between Fina and Brio would be covered by the amendment
extending the expiration date of the letter of credit. In January 1982, Reese and Kathy Kiser discussed extending the
letter of credit to cover oil deliveries during the month of February 1982. The third amendment extended the
expiration date to March 3, 1982, with all other terms and conditions to remain the same. In March 1982, a third
Fina representative, Robert Holmes, contacted Kathy Kiser concerning the letter of credit to seek coverage of oil
exchange imbalances for the months of March and April. At Kiser's suggestion, a fourth amendment was executed
which extended the expiration date to May 31, 1982.
Fina bases its claim for fraudulent misrepresentation on Kiser's statements that the last three amendments extending
the expiration date of the letter of credit also had the effect of extending the number of months during which
exchange imbalances between Fina and Brio would be covered under the credit. In multiple points of error, Fina
contends that the court of appeals erred in holding that Kiser's representations were her own opinions as to the legal
effect of the amendments, and as such could not support a judgment for fraud. We agree with the court of appeals'
determination that Kiser's representations on this point did not amount to actionable fraud.
In Westwind Exploration, Inc. v. Homestate Savings Association, 696 S.W.2d 378 (Tex.1985), we considered the
legal effect of amendments to a letter of credit which extended the expiration date of the letter and stated that “all
other terms and conditions remain the same.” In Westwind, the letter of credit covered oil *540 shipments in August
1982. Two amendments extended the expiration date of the letter. When Westwind, Inc. attempted to present
invoices under the credit for shipments in July, August, September and October of 1982, its draft was dishonored for
failure to strictly comply with the requirement that the presentment documents include only invoices for August
shipments. We held that as a matter of law Westwind's presentment documents did not comply with the terms of the
letter. The extension of the expiration date did not have the legal effect of expanding the months of coverage of the
[1] Kathy Kiser's representations to Fina that the coverage of the letter could be expanded by amending the
expiration date were representations concerning the legal effect of the amendments. A representation as to the legal
effect of a document is regarded as a statement of opinion rather than of fact and will not ordinarily support an
action for fraud. Safety Casualty Company v. McGee, 133 Tex. 233, 127 S.W.2d 176 (Tex.Comm'n.App.1939,
opinion adopted); Lewis v. River Oaks Capital Corp., 466 S.W.2d 348, 351 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1971,
writ ref'd n.r.e.); Bifano v. Econo Builders, Inc., 401 S.W.2d 670 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1966, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
[2][3][4] There are certain exceptions to the general rule that misrepresentations involving a point of law or the legal
effect of a document will not support an action for fraud. These exceptions embody a recognition that in certain
circumstances a statement of opinion can rise to the level of fraud. A party having superior knowledge, who takes
advantage of another's ignorance of the law to deceive him by studied concealment or misrepresentation, can be held
responsible for this conduct. Relief may also be granted for misrepresentation as to a point of law or of legal rights
where there is a fiduciary or confidential relationship of trust between the parties. Additionally, misrepresentations
involving a point of law will be considered misrepresentations of fact if they were intended and understood as such.
Safety Casualty Co. v. McGee, 127 S.W.2d 176.
[5] In the present case, Fina and Abilene National Bank, two equally sophisticated business entities, were dealing at
arms' length. There was no confidential or fiduciary relationship between the parties. It cannot be said that Abilene
National Bank enjoyed superior knowledge, or access to knowledge, concerning the law of letters of credit. Both
Fina and Abilene National Bank have access to legal counsel, in fact Fina had the first amendment to the letter of
credit examined by its attorneys to be certain that the amendment provided extended coverage. Fina failed to have
the second, third and fourth amendments reviewed to determine whether the extension of the expiration date of the
letter of credit also extended the months of coverage for oil exchange imbalances. The president of Fina Supply
testified that Fina has had extensive experience with the use of letters of credit as financing mechanisms. No artifice
or fraud was employed which prevented Fina from making an examination of the amendments to determine whether
they accomplished the desired extension of the coverage under the credit. Likewise, where the parties are in an equal
bargaining position with equal access to legal advice, there is no room for application of the doctrine that
misrepresentations of points of law will be considered misrepresentations of fact if they were so intended and
understood. This is so because in such a situation the parties enjoy the opportunity of making their own investigation
and determination of the legal effect of their actions. See, Bifano v. Econo Builders, Inc., 401 S.W.2d 670
(Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1966, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
In the present case, Kathy Kiser's statements related solely to the legal effect of amending the expiration date of the
letter of credit; they did not concern a present factual state of affairs and were not represented as such. Fina enjoyed
the opportunity of verifying Kiser's statement, an opportunity*541 which Fina declined. Fina will not now be heard
to complain that it is excused from the exercise of ordinary care in its business relations because it chose to accept as
a fact that an extension of the expiration date of a letter of credit also extends the coverage of the credit. We hold
that Kiser's statements concerned the legal effect of the amendments to letter of credit No. 1342, and as such are
mere statements of opinion which will not support an action for fraud.
[10][11] An instrument will not be reformed unless the evidence establishes mutual mistake or some other ground
for reformation. Davis v. Davis, 141 Tex. 613, 175 S.W.2d 226, 230 (1943) . Fina obtained the trial court order
reforming the letter of credit to reflect coverage of oil exchange imbalances through April 1982, on the basis of
Fina's unilateral mistake as to the dates of coverage coupled with Abilene National Bank's fraudulent and inequitable
conduct or, alternately, on the basis of Fina's and Abilene National Bank's mutual mistake. We have determined that
Abilene National Bank's representations did not constitute actionable fraud. Nor can it be said that Abilene National
Bank's actions amounted to that sort of inequitable conduct which when coupled with unilateral mistake will support
reformation of an instrument. Nothing prevented Fina from examining the amendments to the letter of credit in order
to ascertain whether they accomplished Fina's goal of obtaining extended coverage under the credit. Fina's failure to
make its own determination, and consequently its mistake, was not due to any fraud or deception on the part of
Abilene National Bank, but stemmed instead from Fina's misplaced reliance on Kiser's statements of opinion.
[12][13] Fina is not entitled to reformation of the terms of the credit for the additional reason that reformation of a
letter of credit will not lie unless it is based on findings sufficient to support reformation made with regard to each of
the parties to the letter of credit transaction. To engage its credit, a bank must be able to predict with certainty the
possible range of its liability and must be assured that the scope of this liability will not be altered. A change in the
obligations or liabilities of one of the parties to a letter of credit transaction must necessarily affect the obligations
and liabilities of the other parties. This need for certainty, and the fact of interdependence, is expressed in TEX.
BUS. & COMM. CODE ANN. § 5.106(b) which states that once established, an irrevocable credit can be modified
by the issuer only with the consent of the beneficiary*542 and the account party. The International Chamber of
Commerce in its Uniform Customs and Practices for Documentary Credits (1974 revision) states with regard to
irrevocable credits: “... such undertakings can neither be amended nor cancelled without the agreement of all parties
thereto.” A change in the obligations of an issuing bank to a beneficiary by modification or reformation of a letter of
credit also involves a change in the obligations of the account party to the same issuing bank. This interdependence
is apparent when it is realized that under TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. § 5.114(c) the account customer is
bound to reimburse the issuer for any payment duly made under the terms of the credit. By extending the coverage
[14][15] This determination that the order of reformation was improperly entered results in the conclusion that Fina
did not strictly comply with the presentment requirements under the letter of credit as it stood before the order of
reformation was entered. Fina attempted to present draw documents for exchange imbalances through April 1982.
The terms of the letter of credit, as amended, covered exchange imbalances from October 1981 to December 1981.
In addition, Fina's draw documents consisted of provisional invoices, rather than commercial invoices, did not
evidence delivery of “Giddings” type crude oil and attempted to collect for oil delivered to a delivery point not
specifically listed in the letter of credit. Fina failed to strictly comply with the terms and conditions of the letter of
credit and was not entitled to receive payment under it.
The court of appeals erred in holding that Fina made an election of remedies. Fina was not entitled to an order of
reformation and no fraud was shown on the part of Abilene National Bank. We affirm the judgment of the court of
appeals that Fina take nothing.
Tex.,1987.
Fina Supply, Inc. v. Abilene Nat. Bank
726 S.W.2d 537, 3 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1856, 13 A.L.R.5th 1017
END OF DOCUMENT
KEYCITE
Fina Supply, Inc. v. Abilene Nat. Bank, 726 S.W.2d 537, 3 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1856, 13 A.L.R.5th 1017
(Tex.,Mar 18, 1987) (NO. C-5390)
History
Direct History
1 Abilene Nat. Bank v. Fina Supply, Inc., 706 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.App.-Eastland Feb 27, 1986) (NO. 11-
85-112-CV), writ granted (Nov 05, 1986)
Affirmed in Part, Disapproved in Part by
=> 2 Fina Supply, Inc. v. Abilene Nat. Bank, 726 S.W.2d 537, 3 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1856, 13 A.L.R.5th
Distinguished by
3 Bado Equipment Co., Inc. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 814 S.W.2d 464 (Tex.App.-Hous. (14 Dist.) Jul
25, 1991) (NO. C14-89-1167-CV) HN: 1 (S.W.2d)
4 City of Glenn Heights v. Sheffield Development Co., Inc., 55 S.W.3d 158 (Tex.App.-Dallas Aug 09,
2001) (NO. 05-00-01238-CV), review denied (Feb 28, 2002) HN: 7 (S.W.2d)
KEYCITE
Fina Supply, Inc. v. Abilene Nat. Bank, 726 S.W.2d 537, 3 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1856, 13 A.L.R.5th 1017 (Tex.,
Mar 18, 1987) (NO. C-5390)
KEYCITE
Fina Supply, Inc. v. Abilene Nat. Bank, 726 S.W.2d 537, 3 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1856, 13 A.L.R.5th 1017 (Tex.
Mar 18, 1987) (NO. C-5390)
Citing References
Distinguished by
1 City of Glenn Heights v. Sheffield Development Co., Inc., 55 S.W.3d 158, 164+ (Tex.App.-Dallas
Aug 09, 2001) (NO. 05-00-01238-CV) " HN: 7 (S.W.2d)
2 Bado Equipment Co., Inc. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 814 S.W.2d 464, 476+ (Tex.App.-Hous. (14
Dist.) Jul 25, 1991) (NO. C14-89-1167-CV) HN: 1 (S.W.2d)
Discussed
3 Soto v. International Medical Group, Inc., 2007 WL 968893, *3+ (Tex.App.-Hous. (14 Dist.) Apr 03,
2007) (NO. 14-05-00956-CV) HN: 7,9 (S.W.2d)
4 In re Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, 2 S.W.3d 27, 30+ (Tex.App.-Amarillo May 17,
1999) (NO. 07-99-0098-CV) " HN: 6,7,8 (S.W.2d)
5 Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. Saenz, 865 S.W.2d 103, 110+ (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi
Jul 29, 1993) (NO. 13-91-029-CV) HN: 2,3,4 (S.W.2d)
6 Cantwell v. Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., 2005 WL 2296049, *4+, 96 A.F.T.R.2d 2005-6335,
2005-6335+ (N.D.Tex. Sep 21, 2005) (NO. CIV.A. 305CV1378-D) " HN: 1,3,4 (S.W.2d)
7 Landscape Design and Const., Inc. v. Transport Leasing/Contract, 2002 WL 257573, *9+ (N.D.Tex.
Feb 19, 2002) (NO. CIV.A.3:00-CV-0906-D) " HN: 1,4 (S.W.2d)
8 BP America Production Co. v. Marshall, 288 S.W.3d 430, 444+ (Tex.App.-San Antonio Dec 10,
2008) (NO. 04-06-00478-CV) HN: 2,3,4 (S.W.2d)
Cited
9 Sauceda v. Kerlin, 164 S.W.3d 892, 925+, 167 Oil & Gas Rep. 348+ (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi Jun
09, 2005) (NO. 13-01-00062-CV) HN: 6,7 (S.W.2d)
10 Daniels v. Walters, 2004 WL 741672, *4+ (Tex.App.-Austin Apr 08, 2004) (NO. 03-03-00375-CV)
HN: 4 (S.W.2d)
Mentioned
48 Exxon Co., U.S.A., a Div. of Exxon Corp. v. Banque De Paris Et Des Pays-Bas, 889 F.2d 674, 677,
58 USLW 2403, 2403 (5th Cir.(Tex.) Dec 08, 1989) (NO. 87-2007)
49 Psarianos v. Kikis, 941 F.Supp. 79, 81 (E.D.Tex. Sep 25, 1996) (NO. 1:95-CV-0090)
Court Documents
130 Sean LUNDY, Petitioner, v. Marcos V. MASSON, Respondent., 2008 WL 4296796, *4296796+
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (Tex. Aug 21, 2008) Petition for Review (NO. 08-0674)
Appellate Briefs
132 MUELLER COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH SHORE BANK, Defendant-Appellee., 1992
WL 12576844, *12576844+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Dec 21, 1992) Brief of the Defendant-
Appellee (NO. 92-2145) HN: 14,15 (S.W.2d)
Trial Pleadings
227 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, v. Keith SPENCER, Defendant. Secure
Party Keith Spencer Spokesman in behalf of Unincorporate Corporation Keith Spencer, Counter
claimant, v. The People of the State of California, Counter defendant., 2004 WL 3662384, *3662384
(Trial Pleading) (S.D.Cal. Jul 28, 2004) Compulsory Counterclaim Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organization (RICO) 18 USC 1967 et. al 18 USC 513 Affidavit of Truth 1) Rejection
of Congress/ Chief Justice Bankrup (NO. 04CV1520JM)
228 SECURE PARTY KEITH SPENCER Spokesman in behalf of Unincorporate Corporation Keith
Spencer, Counter Claimant, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Counter
Defendant., 2004 WL 3662393, *3662393 (Trial Pleading) (S.D.Cal. Jul 28, 2004) Complaint (NO.
04CV1520JM, WMC)
229 Robert B. BUSCHER, Plaintiff, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE and Brenda L. Jackson,
Defendant., 2009 WL 391852, *391852+ (Trial Pleading) (E.D.Mo. Jan 16, 2009) Plaintiff, Robert
B. Buscher claim and complaint of Defendant seeks damages for Illegal Tax Collections under
the authority of Wrongful Levy 26 USC || 7426(a)(2), 7433, 7214, 7215. [18 USC | 1344]- ... (NO.
09CV00122) HN: 2 (S.W.2d)
230 Dorothy Helen MEAD, Plaintiff, v. Officer John DOE 1 Officer John Doe 2 Richard Richard M 3
Washington County Administrator Officer McLeon 4 Security Officer John Doe 5 Washington
County Jail Officers JanDoe 1 John Doe 7 John Doe 8 John Doe 9 John Doe 10 John Doe 11 John
Doe 12 John Doe 13 Circuit Court Judge Stever Phile for Washington County Senior Pro Tern Court
Judge Rudy Murgo District Attorney Bob Herman District Attorney Fun Washington County et al
State of Oregon, 2005 WL 1534839, *1534839 (Trial Pleading) (D.Or. Jun 2005) Complaint for
Damages (NO. CV05816)
279 HUNSMAN CORPORAION, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC and
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., Defendants., 2009 WL 1942588, *1942588 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (Tex.Dist. Apr 13, 2009) The Lenders' Motion for Summary
Judgment on Huntsman's Claims of Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation (NO. 08-09-09258)
285 GREAT WESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Ventura SERVIN, Defendant., 2006 WL
6132660, *6132660+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Tex.Dist. Sep 29, 2006)
Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 166a(b),
(i) (NO. 99-CI-14256)
286 Anatoly SVERDLIN, Plaintiff, v. AUTOMATED MARINE PROPULSION SYSTEMS, INC. and
L.D.E. Associates, L.L.C., et al., Defendants., 2006 WL 5923938, *5923938+ (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (Tex.Dist. 2006) Defendant Mark Swank's Renewed Motion for
New Trial, Motion to Modify the Judgment, and Motion for Remittitur (NO. 97-02103)
287 DATA-TECH, INC., H&D Capital, L.P. and RX Capital, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. PHARMACARE
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Defendant., 2005 WL 4850944, *4850944 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (Tex.Dist. Aug 01, 2005) Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment (NO. 141-200456-03)
288 LAUDERDALE'S L.P. a/k/a East Texas Marina Enterprises, Plaintiff, v. NEW HAMPSHIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Ben Fischman d/b/a New Hampshire Insurance Ben Fischman &
Associates, Universal Insurance Services, Inc., Aig Claim Services, Inc., Aig Technical Services, Inc.
Bill Adams, and Regional Reporting, Inc., Defendants., 2005 WL 1488022, *1488022 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (Tex.Dist. Feb 04, 2005) Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment And no Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. CAUSE048-187839-01)
289 Iris REYES-SOTO, v. INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL GROUP INC., Sirius International Insurance
Corporation, Rodolfo ""Ropo"" Beltran and Union Central Life Insurance Company., 2005 WL
4903260, *4903260 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Tex.Dist. Jan 24, 2005) Plaintiff's
Motion to Exclude Evidence (NO. 2002-59082)
290 Harry J. BLANEK, and Arlington National Bank, as Trustee of the Harry J. Blanek Self-Directed
I.R.A, v. TEXAS STATE BANK, San Angelo, Texas; World Housing Concepts, Inc.;Sherice Bezner,
Robert Bezner, Larry Turner, and Thomas R. Turet., 2004 WL 3483322, *3483322 (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (Tex.Dist. Nov 11, 2004) Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Response
Brief and Objections to Defendants' Summary Judgment Evidence (NO. 348-200714-03)
291 James Dills, Jr., v. SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., Individually and in its Capacity as
Successor-in-Interest to Meritech Mortgage Services, Inc.; Leslie L. Cook, Ida W. Cook, Toby Potter,
Angie Potter., 2004 WL 3401552, *3401552 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Tex.Dist.
Oct 27, 2004) Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Under Texas
Rule of Civil Procedure 166a and 166a(i) (NO. CAUSE153-197016-03)
292 Kelly HOSKINSON, Plaintiff, v. MIDWEST WRECKING CO., OF TEXAS, INC., Penco
Construction Co., Inc., and Exchange Street Partners, Ltd, Defendants., 2004 WL 3460525,
*3460525 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Tex.Dist. Apr 22, 2004) Defendant Midwest
Wrecking Co., of Texas, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support Thereof
(NO. CAUSE352-198515-03)
303 Riad Elsolh HAMAD, Plaintiff, v. TEXAS STATE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION; Texas Faculty
Association, Defendants., 2001 WL 36106221, *36106221 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
Affidavit) (Tex.Dist. Feb 09, 2001) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 99-07734)
304 Richard T. KELLY, Plaintiff, v. RIO GRANDE COMPUTERLAND GROUP, Inc., Elio Castanuela,
and Manuel Marrufo, Defendants; Rio Grande Computerland Group, Third-Party Plaintiff, v.
Mayfield & Perrenot, A Professional Corporation, Richard S. Perrenot, Robert G. Gilbert, Robert V.
Gibson, Victor F. Poulos, Roy Brandys, Jeffrey W. McElroy and Susana Visconti, Third Party
Defendants., 2000 WL 35625436, *35625436 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Tex.Dist.
Dec 06, 2000) Defendants' Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (NO. 94-13605)
305 Charles W. SALSMAN and Charles M. Duke, Jr., Plaintiffs, v. TEXCOR INDUSTRIES, INC., Irby
C. Simpkins, Jr., Wesley G. Grace, James A. Massey, and Brownlee O. Currey, Jr., Defendants., 1999
WL 33939885, *33939885 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Tex.Dist. Nov 24, 1999)
Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Enroll Foreign Judgment
(NO. 303920-3TD)
306 Marilyn POOLE, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY., 1999 WL 34789346,
*34789346 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Tex.Dist. May 16, 1999) Plaintiff Marilyn
Poole's Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 96-015632)
307 Anatoly SVERDLIN, Plaintiff, Automated Marine Propulsion Systems, Inc., Derivative plaintiff-
Defendant, v. AUTOMATED MARINE PROPULSION SYSTEMS, INC., L.D.E. Associates,
L.L.C., Mark Swank, James J. Mccoy, Jr., Marvin Chudnoff, Jeffrey Sussman and Louis Dreyfus
Natural Gas Holdings Corp., Defendants., 1999 WL 34966806, *34966806+ (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (Tex.Dist. May 13, 1999) Defendant Marvin Chudnoff's Post-
Remittitur Motion for New Trial, Motion to Modify the Judgment and Motion for Remittitur
(NO. 97-02103)
308 Anatoly SVERDLIN, Plaintiff, Automated Marine Propulsion Systems, Inc., Derivative plaintiff-
Defendant, v. AUTOMATED MARINE PROPULSION SYSTEMS, INC., L.D.E. Associates,
L.L.C., Mark Swank, James J. Mccoy, Jr., Marvin Chudnoff, Jeffrey Sussman and Louis Dreyfus
Natural Gas Holdings Corp., Defendants., 1999 WL 34966795, *34966795+ (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (Tex.Dist. Feb 23, 1999) Defendant Marvin Chudnoff's Motion for
New Trial, Motion to Modify the Judgment and Motion for Remittitur (NO. 97-02103)
309 Anatoly SVERDLIN, Plaintiff, v. AUTOMATED MARINE PROPULSION SYSTEMS, INC. and
L.D.E. Associates, L.L.C., et al., Defendants., 1999 WL 34966798, *34966798+ (Trial Motion,
Memorandum and Affidavit) (Tex.Dist. Feb 23, 1999) Defendant Mark Swank's Motion for New
Jury Instructions
319 BRAZOS RIVER AUTHORITY, Plaintiff, v. IONICS, INCORPORATED, Cajun Constructors, Inc.,
f/k/a Cajun Contractors, Inc., Defendants., 2005 WL 6145265, *6145265 (Jury Instruction)
(W.D.Tex. Feb 07, 2005) Plaintiff's Revised Jury Instructions (NO. 603CV00324)
320 John CARRIERI, Anthony Carrier, Steven M. Elliot, Dave Sergeant, Michael Slentz, and Sean
Slentz, Plaintiffs, v. PETER GUDMUNDSSON, Christopher Bancroft, Bruce Leadbetter, Jim
Armstrong, Trey Traviesa, Harbert Mulherin, Idealab Capital Partners, and Gryphon Holdings,
jointly and severally. Defendants., 2007 WL 904777, *904777+ (Jury Instruction) (Tex.Dist. Feb 05,
2007) Defendants' Second Amended Proposed Jury Charge (NO. 03-02284)