From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Estate of Matejek, in re

Supreme Court of Texas
Oct 2, 1997
960 S.W.2d 650 (Tex. 1997)

Summary

holding that a party seeking summary judgment on a limitations defense is not required to negate the discovery rule when the nonmovant fails to plead or otherwise raise the discovery rule

Summary of this case from Feurtado v. State Farm Lloyds

Opinion

No. 96-1191.

July 9, 1997. Rehearing Overruled October 2, 1997.

Appeal from the District Court, Lavaca County, Gus J. Strauss, J.

Kenneth Edward Kvinta, Yoakum, for Petitioner.

James T. Fletcher, Houston, for Respondent.


In denying this application, the Court disapproves the court of appeals' analysis to the extent that it requires a party seeking summary judgment on a limitations defense to negate the discovery rule when the non-movant has not pleaded or otherwise raised the discovery rule. Woods v. William M. Mercer, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 515, 518 (Tex. 1989). We deny Matejek's application for writ of error.


Summaries of

Estate of Matejek, in re

Supreme Court of Texas
Oct 2, 1997
960 S.W.2d 650 (Tex. 1997)

holding that a party seeking summary judgment on a limitations defense is not required to negate the discovery rule when the nonmovant fails to plead or otherwise raise the discovery rule

Summary of this case from Feurtado v. State Farm Lloyds
Case details for

Estate of Matejek, in re

Case Details

Full title:In re the ESTATE OF Edward John MATEJEK, deceased

Court:Supreme Court of Texas

Date published: Oct 2, 1997

Citations

960 S.W.2d 650 (Tex. 1997)

Citing Cases

Feurtado v. State Farm Lloyds

A defendant moving for summary judgment on the affirmative defense of limitations has the burden to (1)…

Via Net v. TIG Insurance Co.

But a defendant's motion for summary judgment based on limitations need not negate the discovery rule unless…