DeBakey v. Staggs

Texas Supreme Court

DeBakey v. Staggs

612 S.W.2d 924, 24 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 276, 1981 Tex. LEXIS 285

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 4, 1981

DocketB-9751

StatusPublished

Cited by41 cases

This text of 612 S.W.2d 924 (DeBakey v. Staggs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

DeBakey v. Staggs, 612 S.W.2d 924, 24 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 276, 1981 Tex. LEXIS 285 (Tex. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Respondents, Marilyn Sue Staggs, et al., plaintiffs in the trial court, recovered a judgment against petitioner, Douglas N. DeBakey, Esq., under the Deceptive Trade Practice-Consumer Protection Act. (D.T.P. A.), Section 17.41 et seq., of the Texas Business and Commerce Code Annotated, for *925 their damages caused by petitioner’s “unconscionable” actions committed in connection with his agreement to furnish the legal services necessary to change the name of a daughter of Mrs. Staggs by a prior marriage. The trial court found damages of $420.00, which amount was tripled and judgment rendered for the Staggs. The court of civil appeals reduced the amount of damages to the sum of $170.00 and affirmed the trial court judgment as modified. 605 S.W.2d 631.

We agree with the holding of the court of civil appeals that respondents were “consumers” as defined by the D.T.P.A., Section 17.45(4). No question is presented by this application as to the standard of care by which a legal malpractice claim is- to be determined, and we expressly reserve that question for future determination.

The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Respondents, Marilyn Sue Staggs, et al., plaintiffs in the trial court, recovered a judgment against petitioner, Douglas N. DeBakey, Esq., under the Deceptive Trade Practice-Consumer Protection Act. (D.T.P. A.), Section 17.41 et seq., of the Texas Business and Commerce Code Annotated, for *925 their damages caused by petitioner’s “unconscionable” actions committed in connection with his agreement to furnish the legal services necessary to change the name of a daughter of Mrs. Staggs by a prior marriage. The trial court found damages of $420.00, which amount was tripled and judgment rendered for the Staggs. The court of civil appeals reduced the amount of damages to the sum of $170.00 and affirmed the trial court judgment as modified. 605 S.W.2d 631.

We agree with the holding of the court of civil appeals that respondents were “consumers” as defined by the D.T.P.A., Section 17.45(4). No question is presented by this application as to the standard of care by which a legal malpractice claim is- to be determined, and we expressly reserve that question for future determination.

The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

612 S.W.2d 924, 24 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 276, 1981 Tex. LEXIS 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/debakey-v-staggs-tex-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack