“Email correspondence is governed by the Texas Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA).” (See Khoury v. Tomlinson, No. 01-16-00006-CV, at *7 (Tex. App. Dec. 22, 2016).)
“UETA applies to electronic records and signatures relating to a transaction." (See id.)
"A record or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form." (See id.)
"If a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law." (See id.)
“We must construe and apply UETA in a manner to be consistent with reasonable practices concerning electronic transactions and with the continued expansion of those practices.” (See id.)
“Under UETA, an electronic record is a record, created, generated, sent, communicated, received, or stored by electronic means." (See Khoury v. Tomlinson, No. 01-16-00006-CV, at *8 (Tex. App. Dec. 22, 2016).)
“An electronic signature is an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically associated with a record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record." (See id.)
“We review a summary judgment de novo.” (See Harkins v. Wal-Mart Stores Tex., LLC, No. 02-21-00201-CV, at *9 (Tex. App. June 23, 2022).)
“The movant for summary judgment has the burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (See Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co. (1985) 690 S.W.2d 546, 548; Powell v. Foxall (2001) 65 S.W.3d 756, 758.)
“In deciding whether a disputed material fact issue precludes summary judgment, evidence favorable to the non-movant is taken as true.” (See id.)
“Every reasonable inference in favor of the non-movant is indulged and any doubts are resolved in its favor.” (See id.)
“The movant must either disprove at least one element of each of plaintiff's theories of recovery or conclusively establish each essential element of an affirmative defense.” (See City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth. (1979) 589 S.W.2d 671, 678; Powell v. Foxall (2001) 65 S.W.3d 756, 758.)
“If the movant conclusively proves all essential elements of his defense, the burden shifts to the non-movant.” (See Powell v. Foxall (2001) 65 S.W.3d 756, 758.)
“The non-movant must answer that affirmative defense for summary judgment purposes.” (See id.)
It is well settled that “the signature of the person against whom enforcement is sought [under the Statute of Frauds] authenticates the document as reliable evidence of that person's agreement to the transaction.” (See Khoury v. Tomlinson, No. 01-16-00006-CV, at *9 (Tex. App. Dec. 22, 2016).)
It is also well settled that “UETA expressly allows for automated transactions to satisfy the requirements of contract formation.” (See id.)
11 pages
342-306287-19 FILED TARRANT COUNTY 9/27/2019 12:50 PM CAUSE No. 342-306287
Feb 21, 2019
DISMISSED OR NON-SUITED
Tarrant County, TX
Sep 27, 2019
62 pages
096-299039-18 FILED TARRANT COUNTY 2/22/2019 9:25 AM THOMAS A. WILDER CAUSE NO. 96-299039-18 DISTRICT CLERK USHEALTH ADVI
62 pages
096-299039-18 FILED TARRANT COUNTY 2/22/2019 9:25 AM
62 pages
096-299026-18 FILED TARRANT COUNTY 2/20/2019 2:31 PM
62 pages
096-299026-18 FILED TARRANT COUNTY 2/20/2019 2:31 PM
62 pages
096-299048-18 FILED TARRANT COUNTY 2/22/2019 9:58 AM THOMAS A. WILDER CAUSE NO. 096-299048-18 DISTRICT CLERK USHEALTH ADVI
62 pages
096-299048-18 FILED TARRANT COUNTY 2/22/2019 9:58 AM
39 pages
AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL § COURT Plaintiff, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS 284TH COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK, and files this its Motion for Default Judgment, and in support thereof, would show the Court as follows: Citation of Defendant, CHAD MAY, was serv November 13, 20
157 pages
DAVID H. BERG & ASSOCIATES PC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF d/b/a BERG & ANDROPHY, § Plaintiff, § § v. §
Harris County, TX
Aug 03, 2018
Debt/Contract - Debt/Contract
17 pages
9/16/2016 4:31:59 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 12756720 By: Euniecy Gentry
Harris County, TX
Sep 16, 2016
Debt/Contract - Debt/Contract
115 pages
Filed 12 March 28 P2:18 Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza District Clerk Travis District D-1-GN-09-000420 No. D-1-GN-09-000420 Recruiting Partners GP, Inc. d/b/a § In the District Court of Kinney Recruiting, Inc. § § v. § Travis County, Texas § Debra Hren et al. § 419" District Court OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIMS Debra Hren (“Hren”) and Neil Handwerker (“Handwerker”) object to and oppose “Plaintiff's Plea to the Jurisdiction Reg
Feb 09, 2009
CLOSED
Travis County, TX
Mar 28, 2012
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (GEN LIT )
290 pages
Filed 11 October 31 P3:41 Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza District Clerk Travis District D-1-GN-09-000420 No. D-1-GN-09-000420 Recruiting Partners GP, Inc. d/b/a § In the District Court of Kinney Recruiting, Inc. § § v. § Travis County, Texas § Debra Hren et al. § 419" District Court SECOND TRADITIONAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RESPONSE Debra Hren (“Hren”) and Neil Handwerker (“Handwerker”) respond to the “Plaintiff's Second Motion for Summary Judgment on its Declaratory Judgment Claim and Against Defendants
Feb 09, 2009
CLOSED
Travis County, TX
Oct 31, 2011
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (GEN LIT )
21 pages
Filed 10 April 6 P3:47 Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza District Clerk Travis District D-1-GN-09-000420 No. D-1-GN-09-000420 Recruiting Partners GP, Inc. d/b/a In the District Court of Kinney Recruiting, Inc. v. Travis County, Texas On nm tn Debra Hren et al. 419% District Court DITIO UMM: [UDGMENT RESPO} Counter-Plaintiffs Debra Hren (“Hren”) and Neil Handwerker (“Handwerker”) respond to the traditional motion for summary judgment (the “Motion”) filed by Counter-Defendant Recruiting Partners,
Feb 09, 2009
CLOSED
Travis County, TX
Apr 06, 2010
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (GEN LIT )
13 pages
FILED P.;3 NO. 2008-05053 MAY 22 2009 . S-s3 019 CARRIZO OIL & GAS, INC. § IN THE DISTRICT COGREORSs Plaintiff § &y —______ § v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § 2001 TRINITY FUND, LLC § Defendant § 295" JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc. (“Carrizo”) hereby supplements its motion to exclude certain expert testimony to be proffered by 2001 Trinity Fund, LLC, (‘Trinity") as follows: 1 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1.01. By the May 1, 2009 dea
14 pages
NO. 2008-05053 Fi CARRIZO OIL & GAS, INC. § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff § 3 8 : EQ vs. § HARRIS COUNTY; TEXAS *Q lz § : om 7 fy 2001 TRINITY FUND, LLC § . es PF Defendant § 295" JUDICIAL DISTRICT 3 Dp a > xo CARRIZO’S RESPONSE TO TRINITY'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc. (“Carrizo”) files this Response to Defendant 2001 Trinity Fund, LLC’s, (“Trinity”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as follows L There is No Basis to Grant Trinity's M
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
