Nuñez v. Caldarola
This text of 48 S.W.3d 174 (Nuñez v. Caldarola) 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.
Opinion
One of the issues in this legal-malpractice case is whether the rule we announced in Hughes v. Mahoney & Higgins, 821 S.W.2d 154 (Tex.1991), tolled the statute of limitations on the plaintiffs’ claims. The court of appeals held that it did not, and affirmed a summary judgment for the defendant on limitations grounds. 2 S.W.3d 755.
In light of our recent decisions in Apex Towing Co. v. Tolin, 41 S.W.3d 118 (Tex.2001), and Underkofler v. Vanasek, 2000 WL 33191375 (Tex.2001), without hearing oral argument, we grant the petition for review without reference to the merits, vacate the court of appeals’ judgment, and remand this case to that court to reconsider the limitations issue and for other proceedings. See Tex.R.App.P. 59.1, 60.2(f).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
48 S.W.3d 174, 44 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 662, 2001 Tex. LEXIS 32, 2001 WL 421241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nunez-v-caldarola-tex-2001.