University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston v. Big Train Carpet of El Campo, Inc.

739 S.W.2d 792, 43 Educ. L. Rep. 473, 31 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 11, 1987 Tex. LEXIS 385
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 7, 1987
DocketC-6437
StatusPublished
Cited by94 cases

This text of 739 S.W.2d 792 (University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston v. Big Train Carpet of El Campo, Inc.) 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
University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston v. Big Train Carpet of El Campo, Inc., 739 S.W.2d 792, 43 Educ. L. Rep. 473, 31 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 11, 1987 Tex. LEXIS 385 (Tex. 1987).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a summary judgment case. Big Train Carpet of El Campo sued the University of Texas Health Science Center for payment under its carpeting contract. The University counterclaimed for usury based on two late charges of 1.5 percent per month. As a usury defense, Big Train claimed that the charges were added as the result of a bona fide error by its president. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment for Big Train, and, in an unpublished opinion, the court of appeals affirmed. We reverse and remand only as to the University’s usury counterclaim.

The court of appeals, after indulging all inferences and resolving all doubts in favor of Big Train, concluded that Big Train had established its usury defense. Big Train, however, was the successful movant. The University, as the nonmov-ant, was entitled to have all reasonable inferences made and all doubts resolved in its favor. El Chico Corp. v. Poole, 732 S.W.2d 306 (Tex.1987). Under the correct standard of review, there is an issue of fact precluding summary judgment. City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.1979).

Because the court of appeals opinion conflicts with Clear Creek and El Chico, we grant the University’s application, and without hearing oral argument, a majority of the court reverses the court of appeals judgment as to the University’s usury counterclaim, and remands that claim for trial. TEX.R.APP.P. 133(b).

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

Related

Freddy Wirt v. LaBelleCo Fab, LLC
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2024
Garrett Operators, Inc. v. City of Houston
461 S.W.3d 585 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015)
BP Automotive, L.P. v. RML Waxahachie Dodge, L.L.C.
448 S.W.3d 562 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014)
Texas State Board of Public Accountancy v. Bass
366 S.W.3d 751 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2012)
Olympic Waste Services v. City of Grand Saline
204 S.W.3d 496 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Tribble & Stephens Co. v. RGM Constructors, L.P.
154 S.W.3d 639 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
TX Far West, Ltd. v. Texas Investments Management, Inc.
127 S.W.3d 295 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
First Select Corporation v. Ron Grimes
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003
Graham v. Mary Kay Inc.
25 S.W.3d 749 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Wolf v. Holy Cross Church of God in Christ
49 S.W.3d 1 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Zapata Corp. v. Zapata Gulf Marine Corp.
986 S.W.2d 785 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Gmac v. Cd&m
986 S.W.2d 632 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Crenshaw, Dupree & Milam, L.L.P.
986 S.W.2d 632 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Burd v. Armistead
982 S.W.2d 31 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
739 S.W.2d 792, 43 Educ. L. Rep. 473, 31 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 11, 1987 Tex. LEXIS 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/university-of-texas-health-science-center-at-houston-v-big-train-carpet-of-tex-1987.