Yates v. Fisher
Jim YATES, Petitioner, v. Sam FISHER and Bill McNatt, Respondents
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Sam Fisher and Bill McNatt sued Jim Yates and others for fraudulently inducing them to sell their FirstBank stock to Yates before the bank was acquired by First United. Yates moved for summary judgment, relying on Fisher’s and McNatt’s answers to two interrogatories admitting that they did not know of any facts indicating Yates had advance knowledge of the potential sale to FirstBank. The trial court granted Yates’s motion. The court of appeals, however, concluded that Fisher’s answer to a different interrogatory created a fact issue. 953 S.W.2d 370, 378, 383-84 . In the latter interrogatory, Fisher averred Yates told him the board of directors was about to terminate the bank’s relationship with him and pressured him to sell his stock in return for Yates’s favorable influence on the board. None of the parties referred to this interrogatory in their respective summary judgment pleadings, but Yates attached the complete set of interrogatories to his motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals reversed and remanded part of the judgment for trial.
Rule 168(2) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure states that interrogatory answers “may be used only against the party answering the interrogatories.” TexR. Civ. P. 168(2) (emphasis added);
see also Hanssen v. Our Redeemer Lutheran Church, 938 S.W.2d 85, 95 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1997, writ denied) (opinion on rehearing);
Nebgen v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 898 S.W.2d 363, 366 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1995, writ denied). The court of appeals acted contrary to Rule 168(2) and erroneously used Fisher’s interrogatory answers in Fisher’s favor by relying on them to defeat Yates’s motion for summary judgment.
Even without considering the interrogatory, however, Yates is not entitled to summary judgment. Yates did not present summary judgment evidence, as was his burden, to negate Fisher and McNatt’s claims that Yates fraudulently induced them to sell their shares.
See Cove Invs., Inc. v. Manges, 602 S.W.2d 512, 514 (Tex.1980);
but cf.
Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(i) (effective September 1, 1997) (providing for summary judgment when there is no evidence of an essential element of a claim on which the adverse party has the burden of proof). Accordingly, we deny Yates’s petition for writ of error.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 7 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(finding that appellate court erred in using plaintiff = s interrogatory in plaintiff = s favor to defeat summary judgment)
-
(noting in per curiam opinion that court of appeals erroneously used interrogatory responses in favor of the answering party by relying on them to defeat summary judgment)
-
(finding, in accordance with former Civil Procedure Rule 168(2), that the appeals court erred in using the plaintiff = s interrogatory in plaintiff = s favor to defeat the defendant = s motion for summary judgment)
-
(decided under former version of Rule 197.3)
-
(same as to interrogatory responses)
Cited by 63 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Earl Pearson
- Patricia Y. Mayers v. United Independent School District
- Wilma Marie Wilson v. Audrey Jo Biffle
- Matthew Sidwell v. Zuo Modern Contemporary, Inc.
- Braxton Minerals II, LLC and Robert Scott Bauer v. Penn Investment Funds, LLC
- Mary Lou Nava as Next Friend of Angela Nava, a Person With Total Mental Incapacity v. Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc.
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.