King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman
- Court
- Texas Supreme Court
- Decided
- August 28, 2003
- Docket
- 01-0430
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
Cited 2,668 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that the plaintiffs‘ evidence on their extrinsic fraud claims really consisted of no more than theories and suspicions and could not defeat a no-evidence summary judgment motion — Game Systems, Inc. A/K/A Texas Game Systems v. Forbes Hutton Leasing, Inc. and Gametronics Gaming Equipment Limited And Robert Houchin (2011)
- holding that the plaintiffs’ evidence on their extrinsic fraud claims really consisted of no more than theories and suspicions and could not defeat a no-evidence summary judgment motion — Game Systems, Inc. A/K/A Texas Game Systems v. Forbes Hutton Leasing, Inc. and Gametronics Gaming Equipment Limited And Robert Houchin (2011)
- holding that a bill of review is proper where, “through no fault of the bill’s proponent, fraud, accident, or mistake precludes presentation of a meritorious claim . . . .” — Kelley Ann O'Shea, Individually and as Co-Trustee of the Marital Deduction Trust and Family Trust of John Joseph Connor O'Shea v. Kathleen M. O'Shea, Individually & as Co-Executor of the Estate of Rita O'Shea, Co-Trustee of the Marital Deduction Trust and Family Trust of John J.C. O'Shea, Jr. and Manager/Director of Brehon LC (2018)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice JEFFERSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
Various heirs of Major William Warren Chapman and his wife, Helen Chapman, seek title to an undivided one-half interest [*746] in 15,449.4 acres of property, much of it contained within the storied King Ranch in South Texas. The Chapman heirs allege that, in the late 1800s, their forebears’ lawyer conspired with Captain Richard King to deprive the Chapman heirs of rightful title to the property. Seeking to avoid an 1883 agreed judgment, they have filed a bill of review and a trespass to try title action. For the reasons set forth below, we reject their claims.
I
Cite this
King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (2003)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.