Statute Annotations › Texas › Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001

Recovery of attorney's fees: the cases that interpreted this section

Jurisdiction
Texas
Case notes
685
Cited in passing
348
Citing cases indexed
1,199
Case dates
1987–2026
Screened through
2026-06-19
Checked for later law changes
2026-10-20
Courts' treatment: live
No reviewed case has held this section invalid, preempted, superseded or repealed.
This reflects what the reviewed cases said, not legislative action: a later amendment or repeal by the legislature would not appear here unless a reviewed case discussed it.

1,033 citing cases reviewed of 1,199 in the citation index: 685 interpreted the section (annotated below), 348 cited it only in passing. Cases filed after 2026-06-19 may not have been reviewed yet.

Have a situation under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001?

These notes show how courts have ruled. Ask about your specific facts and see which of these rulings apply, with citations you can check.

Later changes in law

Changes after the earliest notes below. A note stating a rule one of these changed is marked "Law changed since".

  • 1997-10-02 Green International, Inc. v. Solis held that a claimant must prevail on a fee-eligible claim and recover damages to obtain fees under § 38.001. Source
  • 2006-12-22 Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa required segregation of fees for claims that do not support recovery, replacing the broader exception for claims arising from the same transaction; services advancing both kinds of claims remain recoverable. Source
  • 2006-12-22 Brainard v. Trinity Universal Insurance Co. held that an insured's claim for § 38.001 fees on underinsured-motorist coverage accrues only after judgment establishes the insurer's payment obligation and the insurer fails to pay after presentment. Source
  • 2008-04-11 Medical City Dallas, Ltd. v. Carlisle Corp. held that an express-warranty claim is a claim on a contract eligible for fees under § 38.001. Source
  • 2009-08-28 MBM Financial Corp. v. Woodlands Operating Co. set aside a fee award where the damages award lacked evidentiary support and could not stand as nominal damages. Source
  • 2019-04-26 Rohrmoos Venture v. UTSW DVA Healthcare, LLP required evidence of reasonable hours and rates to calculate a supported fee award under the lodestar method, displacing reliance on generalized fee testimony alone. Source
  • 2021-09-01 House Bill 1578 amended § 38.001 to permit recovery from an individual or organization, including qualifying limited liability companies and partnerships; it applies to actions commenced on or after this date. Source

Contract and account claims

Section 38.001(8) entitles a prevailing party in a breach of contract suit to attorney's fees.

Noah S. Bunker, Paul Carrell, Everett Brew Houston, Jr., W. Andrew Buchholz, Scott J. Leighty, Jad L. Davis, and Holly C · filed 2015-01-14(8)

The prevailing party in a breach of contract suit is entitled to attorney's fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) does not allow attorney’s fees for a breach of contract claim when the claimant has no valid claim.

Cantu v. Southern Insurance Company · filed 2015-01-22(8)

Because TMM thus did not bring a “valid claim” for breach of contract, it should not have been awarded attorney’s fees, and we reverse the district court’s determination to that effect. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (2013).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 permits recovery of reasonable attorney's fees for a valid breach of contract claim.

City National Bank of Sulphur Springs v. Smith · filed 2015-09-17

W e have already concluded that SPM may recover for breach of contract; therefore, SPM may also recover its reasonable attorney's fees. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 38.001.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 provides for attorney's fees in a breach of contract action.

Fiduciary Mortgage Co. v. City Natl. Bank of Irving · filed 1988-10-19

The Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code provides for an award of attorney's fees in a breach of contract action. See TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. § 38.001 (Vernon 1986). Facts admitted by CNB as a matter of law show that CNB is liable to Fiduciary for breach of contract. Therefore, the trial court's conclusion that Fiduciary is not entitled to attorney's fees is based upon facts incorrectly found and cannot stand.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 permits recovery of reasonable attorney's fees in suits based on written contracts.

Edwin M. Jones Oil Co. v. Pend Oreille Oil & Gas Co. · filed 1990-08-31

Section 38.001 permits recovery of attorneys fees in suits based upon written contracts.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 allows recovery of attorney's fees on a successful claim for unpaid contractual alimony.

Legg v. Legg · filed 1991-04-25

She properly presented her claim to Johnny and is entitled to recover attorney's fees in the amount of $1,290, the amount established by undisputed testimony at trial. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 38.001, 38.002 (Vernon 1986).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of reasonable attorney's fees for a claim based on an oral contract.

Bloom v. Bloom · filed 1989-01-11(8)

We hold that the claim asserted by plaintiff is based upon an oral contract. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 supports a claim for attorney's fees when the claimant recovers on a sworn account.

D v. Hunt Asphalt, Inc. v. Texas Industries, Inc. · filed 1992-05-13

As a result, Texas Industries' suretyship action and claim for attorney's fees is supported by its recovery on the sworn account. See Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 5160 (Vernon Supp. 1992); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001 (Vernon 1986).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) authorizes attorney's fees in a successful suit under a contract, including a partnership agreement.

Atterbury v. Brison · filed 1994-02-23(8)

This action is founded on an oral or written partnership agreement and therefore recovery for attorney's fees and prejudgment interest is proper. See TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 38.001(8) (Vernon 1986) (authorizing recovery of attorney's fees in a successful suit under a contract).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of attorney's fees for a claim under an oral or written contract.

Bryan King and James S. Bumpous/Colorado River Broadcasters, Inc. v. Tolbert Foster/Bryan King and James S. Bumpous · filed 1995-03-15(8)

A party may recover attorney's fees under chapter 38 for a claim under an oral or written contract.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 permits attorney's fees for a sworn account or an oral or written contract claim.

Jimmey Worth Smarr v. Kimed Austin, Inc. · filed 1995-06-21

Because this was a claim for a sworn account or an oral or written contract, we presume that the usual and customary attorney's fees are reasonable. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 38.001, .003 (West 1986).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 permits recovery of reasonable attorney's fees in a suit on sworn account.

Dalton v. Cintas · filed 1995-03-01

Under § 38.001, parties may recover reasonable attorney's fees in a suit on sworn account.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of attorney's fees on a successful contract claim.

American National Insurance Company and Heart of Texas Dodge v. Rosemary Paul and Don Paul · filed 1996-07-17(8)

The attorney's fees awarded against American National, however, were also premised upon the Pauls' contract claim, which remains undisturbed on appeal. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (West 1986) (attorney's fees recoverable upon successful contract claim). Therefore, because there exist alternative grounds to support the award of attorney's fees against American National, we affirm the award of attorney's fees against American National.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 permits attorney's fees for a claim on an oral or written contract without requiring a separate finding of breach.

Allstate Insurance Company v. Lincoln · filed 1998-08-26(8)

Chapter 38 does not speak in terms of a “breach” of contract.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of attorney's fees on a claim brought on an oral or written contract.

Copeland v. Alsobrooks · filed 1999-06-02(8)

Texas law permits the recovery of attorney's fees in a claim brought on an oral or written contract. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.001(8) (Vernon 1997).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 allows attorney’s fees for a proved breach of contract claim even when the claim involves multiple breaches of the same contract.

Performance Printing v. Upper Deck Company · filed 2001-01-30

Upper Deck cannot manufacture a second contract claim because Performance alleged separate instances in which Upper Deck’s conduct breached the original contract. The jury’s affirmative answer to Question 1 means Performance proved its breach of contract claim and is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees thereupon.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 permits recovery of attorney's fees for supported sworn account and breach of contract claims.

Adams, Norwick, III, A/K/A Wick Adams v. H & H Meat Products Company, Inc. · filed 2001-03-01(7), (8)

We have held the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support H&H's claims of breach of contract and sworn account. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001 (7), (8) (Vernon 1997). Attorney's fees may also be recovered upon a finding of fraud arising out of a breach of contractual relations. Gill Sav. Ass'n , 797 S.W.2d at 31. Accordingly, we hold the trial court did not err in awarding H&H attorneys' fees in the amount of $11,000.00.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 permits attorney's fees for a breach of contract claim even when the plaintiff elects damages for an overlapping breach of fiduciary duty claim.

McGuire v. Kelley · filed 2001-03-23

Attorney's fees are recoverable in suits for breach of contract. See Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 38.001 (Vernon 1997). Under the facts of this case, the acts of McGuire constituting a breach of his fiduciary duty also constituted a breach of contract. Kelley is entitled to recover attorney's fees in her breach of contract suit even though she did not recover damages on a breach of contract theory, but on the breach of fiduciary duty claim.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 allows recovery of attorney's fees on a successful claim under an oral or written contract.

Pickett v. Keene · filed 2001-04-12

We have overruled appellants' first, second, and third issues contesting the validity of the contract. Accordingly, we overrule appellants' fourth issue. See Tex. Civ Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001 (Vernon 1997) (attorney's fees are recoverable in suit for claim under an oral or written contract).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 allows a prevailing party in a contract action to recover attorney’s fees.

Maryland Insurance Co. v. Head Industrial Coatings & Services, Inc. · filed 1995-08-31

Attorney’s fees are available to a prevailing party in an Insurance Code action or contract action.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 entitles the prevailing party in a breach-of-contract suit to reasonable attorney's fees.

Laney v. Austin Auto Air Conditioning, Inc. · filed 1999-04-22

Laney correctly states that the prevailing party in a breach-of-contract suit is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001 (West 1997). ... The trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney's fees to the prevailing party in a declaratory-judgment and contract case.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 permits an award of attorney's fees for breach of a written contract when its requirements are met.

Caspary, Delo H. v. William K. Woodruff & Co. and William K. Woodruff · filed 2000-08-31

While we do not agree with appellees' contention that the attorney's fees were awarded as actual damages for Caspary's breach of the covenant not to sue, we do conclude appellees were entitled, under section 38.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, to the attorney's fees that they were awarded.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 permits recovery of attorney fees in a suit for personal services rendered.

Healthcare Centers of Texas, Doing Business as Overton Healthcare Center v. Valentine · filed 1996-05-29

Valentine's suit was for personal services rendered for which a party may recover attorney fees. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001 (West 1986).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 permits recovery of reasonable attorney's fees in addition to a valid claim and costs when the claim is for rendered services or a sworn account.

Walton v. Canon, Short & Gaston · filed 2000-08-02(1), (7)

Section 38.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides for the recovery of reasonable attorney's fees, in addition to the amount of a valid claim and costs, if the claim is for rendered services or for a sworn account.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 permits recovery of attorney's fees for a credit account involving goods sold.

Palomin, Mario v. Zarsky Lumber Co., D/B/A Zarsky Lumber Co., McAllen · filed 2000-08-03

The underlying cause of action in this case concerned a credit account for goods sold for which attorney's fees were recoverable under the credit agreement and pursuant to section 38.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) entitles a party with a valid contract claim against an individual or corporation to reasonable attorney’s fees.

T.C.& C. Real Estate Holding, Inc. v. Danny R. Sherrod and Wife, Wendy Sherrod · filed 2001-08-22(8)

Because we have found that the Sherrods breached the real estate contract by failing to return the earnest money pursuant to the terms of the contract, TC&C is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees under section 38.001(8).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) requires an award of reasonable attorney’s fees when a plaintiff prevails on a contract claim and recovers damages.

Coffel v. Stryker Corporation · filed 2002-03-14(8)

The award of reasonable attorneys’ fees is mandatory under § 38.001 if the plaintiff prevails in his or her breach of contract claim and recovers damages.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of reasonable attorney's fees from an individual or corporation on a valid oral or written contract claim.

Tracey Suttles NBC Holdings, Inc. Orbit Resources, Inc. And Mopac Windridge One Ltd. v. Bryan Kastleman and Jon Blum · filed 2002-07-26(8)

Texas law provides that reasonable attorney's fees are recoverable from an individual or corporation, in addition to the amount of a valid claim and costs, "if the claim is for an oral or written contract." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (West 1997).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of attorney’s fees for a successful claim for amounts owed under a contract.

Clarke v. Kempner · filed 2002-12-11(8)

We find that Clarke should have been awarded attorney’s fees under section 38.001(8) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 permits an award of attorney’s fees to a party prevailing on a breach of contract claim.

Houshang Solhjou, Ind., and D/B/A Melrose Mobile Home Park v. Harris County, Texas and the State of Texas · filed 2003-04-10

However, because we have held that Solhjou’s breach of contract claim against Karbalai was barred by waiver, leaving Karbalai’s breach of contract action as the only prevailing contractual claim, we render judgment for Karbalai for the amounts of attorney’s fees stipulated by the parties at trial. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001 (Vernon 1997).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 allows a party to recover reasonable and necessary attorney's fees for breach of contract.

Venture Encoding Service, Inc. v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2003-05-01

Because appellee breached its contract, appellant was also entitled to reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees under section 38.001 of the civil practices and remedies code.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows a party that prevails on a written contract claim and requests attorney's fees to recover reasonable fees.

Mohammad Hanif, D/B/A Pik N Pak v. Alexander Oil Company · filed 2002-09-19(8)

Having prevailed on its suit on a written contract and having requested attorney's fees in its pleadings, Alexander Oil was entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees from appellant. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (Vernon 1997).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 permits an award of attorney's fees for a successful breach-of-contract claim.

American Network Leasing Corporation and Electronic Data Systems Corporation v. Corporate Funding Houston, Inc. · filed 2002-10-10

The award for breach of contract is sufficient to support the award of attorney's fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows attorney's fees in a successful contract suit to collect a covered claim after the receiver's determination becomes final.

Berkel v. Texas Property · filed 2002-11-07(8)

The claim for statutory attorney's fees rests on section 38.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, authorizing such fees in suits founded on contract. ... Nothing in articles 21.28 and 21.28-C expressly purports to preclude attorney's fees and postjudgment interest in cases where payment is withheld after a receiver's covered-claim determination has become final and binding and the claimant is forced to sue to recover the amount of his contract debt. ... Consequently, we believe Berkel was entitled to the statutory attorney's fees and statutory postjudgment interest for which he prayed, and the trial-court judgment constitutes an abuse of discretion for denying those sums.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(7) allows recovery of attorney’s fees in a suit on a sworn account.

Mekdessi v. RISC · filed 2003-03-27(7)

Under section 38.001(7) of the civil practices and remedies code, attorney’s fees are recoverable for a suit on a sworn account.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of reasonable and necessary attorney's fees in a successful suit arising from an oral partnership agreement.

Long v. Lopez · filed 2003-08-21(8)

Appellant also seeks to recover the attorney's fees expended pursuing the instant lawsuit. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (authorizing recovery of attorney's fees in successful suit under an oral contract); see also Atterbury v. Brison , 871 S.W.2d 824, 828 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1994, writ denied) (holding attorney's fees are recoverable by partner under section 38.001(e) because action against other partner was founded on partnership agreement, which was a contract). We agree that Appellant is entitled to recover reasonable and necessary attorney's fees incurred in bringing the instant lawsuit.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 allows a prevailing party on a written contract claim to recover reasonable attorney’s fees.

Mary Williams, D.D.S. and Russell Williams, D.D.S. v. L.M.S.C., Inc., D/B/A the Dental Solution · filed 2005-10-06(8)

First , section 38.001(3) provides that a party may recover reasonable attorney’s fees if the claim is for an oral or written contract. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (Vernon 1997). Here, because we have concluded that the evidence was legally sufficient for the jury to determine that Mary and Russell breached their written contract with TDS, we hold that TDS, as the prevailing party, was entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 allows a party that recovers on a valid breach of contract claim to recover reasonable attorney’s fees.

Toshiba MacHine Co., America v. SPM Flow Control, Inc. · filed 2005-11-10

We have already concluded that SPM may recover for breach of contract; therefore, SPM may also recover its reasonable attorney’s fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 permits a party that prevails on a sworn account to recover reasonable attorney’s fees.

Solano v. Syndicated Office Systems, D/B/A Central Financial Control · filed 2005-08-25

Since we have concluded that SOS properly prevailed on a sworn account, it was entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 entitles a party who proves a breach of contract and recovers resulting damages to attorney's fees, even when the damages are future damages.

Dixon v. Modelist · filed 2004-09-23

When a party proves a breach of contract and resulting damages, he or she is entitled to attorney's fees. ... Here, Modelist recovered damages in a contract cause of action; thus, he is also entitled to recover his attorney's fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 allows reasonable attorney's fees for a successful breach of contract claim.

Coastal Mart, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. · filed 2005-01-20

Specifically, Coastal is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its claim for breach of contract and reasonable attorney's fees under chapter 38 of the civil practice and remedies code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 38.001 (Vernon 1997).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows recovery of attorney’s fees in a successful suit under an oral contract.

Texas NOM Limited Partnership D/B/A Garrison, Ltd. and Texas MON, L.C. v. Akuna Matata Investments, Ltd. · filed 2005-01-26(8)

Because attorney’s fees are recoverable in a successful suit under an oral contract, Texas Nom’s eighth issue is overruled.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of attorney's fees in an action founded on an oral or written partnership agreement.

Vernon R. Young, Jr. v. Qualls · filed 2005-09-16(8)

Recovery of attorney's fees is proper in an action founded on an oral or written partnership agreement.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits reasonable attorney’s fees when a party prevails on a contract claim and recovers damages.

Devon SFS Operating , Inc., and IMC Global, Inc. v. First Seismic Corporation, a Delaware Corporation · filed 2006-02-16(8)

Having prevailed on its breach of contract claim, by pursuing this indemnity action and recovering damages, section 38.001(8) entitled First Seismic to the attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs authorized by paragraph 5.B. of the September 1990 agreement.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees in a suit on an oral or written contract.

World Access Telecommunications Group, Inc. v. Statewide Calling · filed 2006-10-17(8)

A person may recover reasonable attorney’s fees in a suit on an oral or written contract. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (West 1997).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 allows attorney’s fees for a claim based on an oral or written contract.

EMCC INC., Assignee in Interest to REVGRO NATIONS v. Johnson · filed 2006-10-25

A party may obtain attorney’s fees for a claim based on “an oral or written contract.” ... This evidence conclusively proved EMCC’s entitlement to attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,921.28.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of reasonable attorney's fees from an individual or corporation on a claim based on an oral or written contract.

Texas Community Bank, N.A., Scott A. Carlisle and Dock Hi, L.L.C. v. Witte Investment Groups, LTD. · filed 2007-02-15(8)

A party may recover reasonable attorney's fees from an individual or corporation if the claim is based on an oral or written contract. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (Vernon 1997). ... Thus, because Carlisle and Dock Hi are jointly and severally liable for the note, the trial court properly awarded attorney's fees as to these parties.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits a prevailing party to recover reasonable attorney’s fees on a written contract claim.

D'Lux Movers & Storage v. Daniel Fulton and Betsy Fulton · filed 2007-05-03(8)

Section 38.001(8) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides that a party may recover reasonable attorney’s fees if the claim is for an oral or written contract. ... Here, because D’Lux breached its written contract with the Fultons, we hold that the Fultons, as the prevailing party, were entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 permits recovery of attorney’s fees on a successful breach-of-contract claim.

Passat Laundry Systems, Inc. v. Flake Industrial Services · filed 2006-03-15

Flake is also entitled to recover attorney’s fees, which the trial court found to be $29,317.50.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) authorizes reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for a prevailing party in an action for breach of an oral or written contract.

Boondoggles Corporation v. Yancey · filed 2006-08-03(8)

The award of attorney’s fees in this case is governed by Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (Vernon Supp. 2005), which authorizes the award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to a party who prevails in an action for breach of an oral or written contract.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of attorney's fees for a successful breach-of-contract claim.

McCORD CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. Metal Sales Manufacturing Corporation · filed 2006-08-31(8)

Although we agree that the statutory mechanic's lien was not intended by the legislature to be used to secure payment for attorney's fees, see Palomita, Inc. v. Medley , 747 S.W.2d 575, 578 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1988, no writ), we view differently an award of attorney's fees based on a successful action for breach of contract, see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (Vernon 1987).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows a claimant to recover attorney fees in addition to a valid claim based on a written contract.

Oscar J. Comeaux, III v. Booker Loud · filed 2006-10-12(8)

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 38.001 allows a claimant suing for breach of contract to recover attorney fees in addition to the amount of a valid claim based on a written contract.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits attorney's fees in a suit on a contract, but a party who does not recover for breach of contract cannot recover fees on that basis.

Migl v. Dominion Oklahoma Texas Exploration & Production, Inc. · filed 2007-02-15(8)

Attorney's fees are recoverable in a suit on a contract pursuant to subsection 38.001(8). ... A party who does not recover for breach of contract, however, cannot recover attorney's fees under that theory.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

A claim for attorney’s fees under Section 38.001 based on breach of contract depends on the underlying contract claim.

in Re: Home State County Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2007-05-16

Horn’s claim for attorney’s fees requires a breach of contract, and the only claim for breach of contract related to Home State’s alleged improper or unfair settlement practices.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows reasonable attorney’s fees for a contract claim, but a party cannot recover them when no breach occurred.

American International Specialty Lines Insurance v. Res-Care, Inc. · filed 2008-06-02(8)

Texas law provides for the recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees for a claim based on an oral or written contract. ... Therefore, because Res-Care did not fail or refuse to do something it had promised to do, there was no breach of contract, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying American an award of attorney’s fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits attorney’s fees for an oral or written contract claim only if the claimant prevails and recovers damages.

City of The Colony, Texas v. North Texas Municipal Water District · filed 2008-11-26(8)

To recover attorneys’ fees under section 38.001, a party must both prevail on a claim for which attorneys’ fees are recoverable and recover damages. ... The final judgment does not award the District any damages for The Colony’s breach of the Contract. We hold that the District is not entitled to attorneys’ fees under section 38.001.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 requires an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing party in a breach of contract suit when the fees are proven reasonable.

Narsi v. Weingarten Realty Investors · filed 2007-11-29(8)

When a prevailing party in a breach of contract suit seeks attorney’s fees, section 38.001 mandates an award of reasonable fees if there is proof that the fees are reasonable.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows recovery of reasonable and necessary attorney fees incurred in pursuing breach of contract damages.

Morgan Buildings & Spas, Inc. v. Humane Society of Southeast Texas · filed 2008-03-13(8)

The Humane Society is entitled to recover reasonable and necessary attorney fees incurred in pursuing breach of contract damages. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 38.001(8) (Vernon 1997).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of reasonable and necessary attorney fees incurred in pursuing breach of contract damages.

Morgan Buildings and Spas, Inc. v. Humane Society of Southeast Texas · filed 2008-03-13(8)

The Humane Society is entitled to recover reasonable and necessary attorney fees incurred in pursuing breach of contract damages.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 permits a reasonable attorney's fee award in a breach of contract action.

271 Truck Repair & Parts, Inc. v. First Air Express, Inc. and Allen T. Love · filed 2008-06-11

Pursuant to the statute governing attorney's fees in breach of contract actions, the trial court is given discretion to award a reasonable fee and, in a proceeding before the court, may take judicial notice of usual and customary fees. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 38.001, .004 (West 1997); Lee v. Perez , 120 S.W.3d 463, 469 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows attorney’s fees for a breach of contract claim only when the claimant prevails and recovers damages.

Dorton v. Chase · filed 2008-07-02(8)

To be entitled to attorney's fees, a party must (1) prevail on a cause of action for which attorney's fees are recoverable, and (2) recover damages. Green Int'l v. Solis, 951 S.W.2d 384, 390 (Tex.1997). Dorton sued Chase for breach of contract regarding the Settlement Agreement which is an action for which attorney's fees are recoverable. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 38.001(8) (Vernon 1997). ... Because the affirmative answer to Question 2 is no longer viable, he has not prevailed on his breach of contract claim. Further, no damages were awarded to Dorton by the jury on his breach of contract claim. Accordingly, Dorton is not entitled to attorney's fees, and his fourth issue is overruled.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of reasonable attorney's fees in a suit for breach of contract.

Auto Excel Lube Center, Inc. v. Midstate Environmental Services, Llc · filed 2008-08-25(8)

Reasonable attorney's fees are recoverable in a suit for breach of contract. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (Vernon 1997).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows a party that recovers on a written contract claim to recover reasonable attorney's fees.

Endovasc, Inc. A/K/A Endovasc Ltd., Inc. v. the Dow Chemical Company · filed 2007-12-13(8)

Dow recovered on its claim for a written contract and is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (Vernon 1997).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 permits recovery of attorney's fees on a successful breach of contract claim.

American Fluorite, Inc. and Triad Drilling & Supply Co., Inc. v. JB Oilfield, L.L.C. · filed 2009-03-19

Because we find the trial court's judgment on the breach of contract claim was proper, the trial court's award of attorneys' fees to JB Oilfield was also proper.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 permits recovery of reasonable attorney's fees on a written contract claim.

Alsheikh v. Arabian National Shipping Corporation · filed 2009-04-02

Nevertheless, the trial court was permitted to "take judicial notice of the usual and customary attorney's fees and of the contents of the case file without receiving further evidence," Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.004 (Vernon 2008), because the award of attorneys' fees in this case arose under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 38.001. See id. § 38.001 (allowing recovery of attorneys' fees when claim is based on written contract); Valdez v. Valdez , 930 S.W.2d 725, 732-33 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ) (holding section 38.004 only applies to claims under section 38.001).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows recovery of reasonable attorney's fees from an individual or corporation on a valid contract claim.

B & W Supply, Inc. and Weston Wyatt v. Lawrence and Diane Beckman · filed 2009-04-09(8)

Because we have sustained B&W's first and second issues on its breach of contract claim and damages, we conclude that B&W is entitled to attorney's fees. (5) See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (Vernon 2008).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 permits reasonable attorney’s fees for an oral or written contract claim if the claimant prevails.

McPherson Road Baptist Church v. Mission Investors/Fort Worth, LP · filed 2009-08-20

McPherson pleaded that it was entitled to attorney’s fees under civil practice and remedies code section 38.001, which provides that “[a] person may recover reasonable attorney’s fees . . . if the claim is for . . . an oral or written contract.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001 (Vernon 2008). ... Therefore, we also sustain McPherson’s sixth issue and remand the issue of attorney’s fees back to the trial court pending the ultimate determination of McPherson’s breach of contract claim.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits attorney's fees for a contract claim, but a claim barred by governmental immunity cannot support a fee award.

Jonah Water Special Utility District v. Aaron Keith White and Lance White · filed 2009-08-31(8)

The Whites sought attorney's fees under two separate statutes: Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 38.001(8), which permits the award of attorney's fees for contract claims, and Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 37.009, which permits the award of "equitable and just" attorney's fees in declaratory relief actions. As discussed above, Jonah was governmentally immune from the Whites' contract claim. That claim was therefore not a proper basis for awarding attorney's fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits reasonable attorney’s fees for a contract claim when the findings establish an agreement, its breach, and resulting damages.

Lee-Way Prince Enterprises, LLC v. Qai Assurance, Inc. and Arthur Kwok · filed 2009-10-29(8)

The trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law support an award of attorney’s fees under the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (Vernon 2008) (allowing for recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees on claim for oral or written contract). The findings identify an agreement among the parties; Prince’s breach of that agreement; and damages incurred by QAI resulting from that breach.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) supports attorney's fees for a contract claim, but a party that neither pleads breach of contract nor seeks summary judgment on that ground cannot recover fees under it.

West Campus Ramsey Properties, Ltd. v. Encinal Condominium Owners' Association · filed 2009-12-30(8)

Section 38.001(8) supports an award of attorney's fees if the claim is for "an oral or written contract." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8). West Campus Ramsey, however, did not allege breach of contract against the Association in its pleadings or seek summary judgment based upon breach of contract to support an award of attorney's fees under section 38.001(8). See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c). On this record, chapter 38 does not support West Campus Ramsey's claim for attorney's fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits attorney’s fees for a claim on an oral or written contract, but does not support fees when the party neither pleads breach of contract nor seeks summary judgment on that ground.

Texas Board of Law Examiners v. Little · filed 2009-12-30(8)

West Campus Ramsey, however, did not allege breach of contract against the Association in its pleadings or seek summary judgment based upon breach of contract to support an award of attorney’s fees under section 38.001(8). See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c). On this record, chapter 38 does not support West Campus Ramsey’s claim for attorney’s fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 permits recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees on a claim based on an oral or written contract.

Giannakopulos v. Eris · filed 2010-02-09(8)

Section 38.001 provides that a person may recover reasonable attorney’s fees on a claim based on an oral or written contract.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) does not allow a defendant to recover attorney’s fees for defeating a contract claim without bringing its own claim and recovering damages.

Whitton v. Edward M. Loescher and April Loescher · filed 2010-04-15(8)

Although the trial court found in favor of the Loeschers in awarding a take-nothing judgment, the Loeschers did not counterclaim for a breach of contract, nor did they recover any damages. Therefore, they are not entitled to recover attorney’s fees under section 38.001.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 permits a party that recovers damages for breach of contract to recover attorney’s fees.

SCTW Health Care Center, Inc., Stan Steele, Wynell Suitt and WTCS Health Care Center, Inc. v. AAR Incorporated · filed 2009-10-15

A party who recovers damages on a breach of contract theory may, pursuant to statute, recover its attorney’s fees. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001 (Vernon 2008). The jury question was predicated upon the jury making an affirmative finding on any of several claims, including breach of contract. Because we have held that the jury’s finding that SCTW breached its contract with AAR was supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence, we overrule SCTW’s eighth issue.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) does not allow attorney’s fees for a breach-of-contract claim when no breach occurred.

Dorothy L. Holland, Independent of the Estate of William R. Holland, Sr. v. EOG Resources, Inc. · filed 2010-03-24(8)

Absent a breach, the Hollands are not entitled to attorney’s fees, damages, or $25,000 contractual damages.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of attorney's fees in a suit on a written contract.

Wyatt v. Capital One Auto Financing · filed 2010-01-29(8)

COAF was also entitled to recover its attorney's fees because it sued on a written contract.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits a prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees on an account stated claim.

Busch v. Hudson & Keys, LLC · filed 2010-05-11(8)

Hudson & Keyse can recover attorney’s fees under Chapter 38 based upon an account stated claim.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees for a claim on an oral or written contract.

Reeder v. Wood County Energy · filed 2010-07-14(8)

The Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides that parties may recover reasonable attorney’s fees if the claim is for an oral or written contract. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (Vernon 2008). As we have shown in issue one, the JOA was a written contract, and Reeder was bound by it. The claim asserted by Dekrfour and Nelson (for the failure to offer the well), and the claim asserted by the Fry Interests (for the loss of the leases), arose under the JOA.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits reasonable attorney's fees in addition to damages and costs on a valid contract claim against an individual or corporation.

Somers v. Alberto & Celia Aranda · filed 2010-07-14(8)

Defendant had notice that attorney's fees were requested, he made no response to that request, and the award was appropriate under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits attorney’s fees for a breach of contract claim, but fees based on that claim cannot be recovered when its damages award is reversed.

R & R Resources Corporation and Jay Brown v. Echelon Oil and Gas, L.L.C. Tex-El Oil and Gas, Inc. And BairTex Energy, In · filed 2011-01-14(8)

Attorneys’ fees are recoverable in connection with a breach of contract claim. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (West 2008). However, because we reverse the jury’s award of breach of contract damages, appellees cannot recover attorneys’ fees based on this claim.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of attorney’s fees on a breach of contract claim.

Dynegy, Inc. v. Terry W. Yates, Individually, and Terry W. Yates, P.C. · filed 2011-02-23(8)

We conclude that judgment may properly be rendered in favor of Yates on his breach of contract claim as well as for recovery of attorney’s fees under the contract claim. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (West 2008).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 makes reasonable attorney’s fees mandatory for a prevailing party on a breach of contract claim when the reasonableness of the fees is proved.

Salem v. Jawhar Asi, Mervat Asi, and JS Transport, Inc. · filed 2011-05-26(8)

When a prevailing party in a breach of contract suit seeks attorney’s fees, an award of reasonable fees is mandatory under section 38.001 if there is proof of the reasonableness of the fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees when a claimant succeeds on a breach of contract claim.

Southland Lloyds Insurance Company v. David Onofre Cantu and Guadalupe Cantu · filed 2011-03-30(8)

Because we overrule Southland’s complaint regarding the Cantus’ breach of contract claim, the Cantus are entitled to attorney’s fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) entitles a party that prevails on a breach of contract claim and receives damages to reasonable attorney’s fees.

Petroleum Solutions, Inc. v. Bill Head D/B/A Bill Head Enterprises and Titeflex Corporation · filed 2011-04-29(8)

Because Head prevailed on his breach of contract claim and was awarded damages, he was entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 permits recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees in a suit on a sworn account or for breach of contract.

Red Hot Enterprises LLC v. Yellow Book Sales · filed 2012-07-25(7), (8)

Second, Yellow Book pled for and, as the prevailing party, was entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees under statute as well as under the terms of the contracts. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 38.001(7), (8) (West 2008) (providing for recovery of attorney’s fees in a suit on a sworn account or a breach of contract action).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows attorney’s fees on a contract claim only when the plaintiff prevails on a breach-of-contract claim and recovers some damages.

Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company v. Wilde · filed 2012-11-30(8)

To recover attorney’s fees under Section 38.001(8), a plaintiff must prevail on a breach-of-contract claim and recover some damages.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows attorney’s fees for a claim on a contract.

Miresco Investment Services, Inc. v. Yatoo Enterprises (USA) Inc. · filed 2012-12-20(8)

Each of these categories of damages is available to a breach of contract claim. See ... TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 38.001(8) (Vernon 2008) (allowing attorneys’ fees for claim on a contract). Accordingly, the breach of contract claim fully supports the judgment.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows a party that prevails and recovers damages on a breach of contract claim to recover reasonable attorney’s fees.

Law Office of David E. Williams, II, P.C. v. Fort Worth Texas Magazine Venture, LP · filed 2011-07-07(8)

Having prevailed and conclusively established $3,000 in damages on its claim for breach of contract, FW Magazine was entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits reasonable attorney’s fees in a breach-of-contract claim even when the contract has no attorney’s fees provision.

Border Gateway, L.L.C D/B/A Merchants Export and Robert H. Bahme v. Gomez · filed 2011-09-20(8)

Where a contract does not expressly provide for attorney’s fees, a party suing on a breach of contract may still be able to recover reasonable attorney’s fees under section 38.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) authorizes recovery of attorney fees in breach-of-contract cases.

J. Todd Southern, Independent of the Estate of Raul "Dude" Crouse v. Kurt E. Goetting, Sr. · filed 2011-11-09(8)

Recovery of attorney fees in breach-of-contract cases is authorized in Texas. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 38.001(8) (West 2008).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows attorney’s fees for a breach of contract claim only when the party prevails at trial and recovers damages.

Jim Chambers, Mary Ann Chambers, and Mark Weisbart, Chapter 7 Trustee v. First United Bank & Trust Company · filed 2012-05-03(8)

Therefore, because the Chamberses failed to recover damages on their breach of contract claim, they were not entitled to recover attorney’s fees under section 38.001.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of attorney’s fees on a valid breach of contract claim.

Cleveland v. Rob Taylor · filed 2012-06-28(8)

We have already held that the trial court properly rendered summary judgment on the Investors’ breach of contract claim, which is a claim that supports an award of attorney’s fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) requires a party to recover damages on a breach of contract claim to receive attorney’s fees.

Lisa Ogdens, Steven Gayle and Wayne Westbrook v. Kenneth Ryals as Managing Trustee of East Texas Investment Trust · filed 2012-07-24(8)

For a party to be entitled to fees under Section 38.001(8), the party must recover damages on a breach of contract claim.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) does not allow attorney’s fees for a contract claim that was neither pleaded nor tried by consent.

Pierre v. Keith Ollivierre, Marilyn Ollivierre and Susan Ollivierre · filed 2011-12-15(8)

Because we have concluded that appellees did not plead a cause of action for breach of a rental agreement and that such an action was not tried by consent, appellees may not recover attorney‘s fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of reasonable attorney's fees for breach of an oral partnership agreement.

Kyle Johnson and Dionne Johnson v. Graze Out Cattle Co. · filed 2012-07-18(8)

A party may recover reasonable attorney's fees in a suit founded on a claim for breach of an oral or written contract. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (West 2008). See Long, 115 S.W.3d at 228 (holding attorney's fees are recoverable by a partner under section 38.001(8) who brings an action against another partner premised on a partnership agreement, which was a contract); see also Atterbury v. Brison, 871 S.W.2d 824, 828 (Tex.App. -- Texarkana 1994, writ denied). Accordingly, Graze Out was entitled to recover reasonable and necessary attorney's fees in accordance with the trial court's judgment.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows a prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees on a contract claim for distributions under an LLC’s regulations.

Nacogdoches Heart Clinic, P.A. v. Pokala · filed 2013-02-06(8)

Pokala is entitled to reimbursement for attorney‟s fees incurred regarding those issues on which he was the prevailing party. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 38.001(8) (West 2008).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits a party with a valid claim on an oral or written contract to recover attorney’s fees.

Emerson Construction Company, Inc. and Western Surety Company v. Ranger Fire, Inc. · filed 2013-08-29(8)

For the same reasons that we conclude that Ranger brought a valid breach of contract claim and that the evidence supports the jury’s finding that Emerson failed to comply with the subcontract, we also conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding Ranger attorney’s fees in the amount of $330,000. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.001(8) (party may recover attorney’s fees if claim is for oral or written contract); Graybar Elec. Co., v. LEM & Assocs., L.L.C., 252 S.W.3d 536, 549 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (within trial court’s discretion to set amount of attorney’s fees award under section 38.001).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits attorney’s fees on a contract claim when the claimant prevails and recovers damages.

Caspian Oil Services, Inc. and James W. Reynolds v. SE Management, LLC · filed 2013-10-29(8)

Finally, in their sixth issue, appellants contend SEM may not recover attorney‘s fees from COS 1 pursuant to section 38.001(8) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code because SEM did not suffer any damages. ... However, we have affirmed the trial court‘s breach-of-contract damages awarded against COS 1. Accordingly, we overrule appellants‘ sixth issue.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits attorney’s fees for contract claims, including reformation claims arising from the contract.

Harkins v. North Shore Energy, L. L. C. · filed 2013-12-12(8)

Instead, we conclude that North Shore’s suit, including its original claims for reformation, were claims for “an oral or written contract” under the statute and therefore the award of attorney’s fees was proper.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) requires an award of some attorney’s fees to a party successful in a breach of contract action, while leaving the amount to the trial court’s discretion.

Maverick Industries, Inc. v. American Teleconferencing Services, Ltd. · filed 2013-04-30(8)

Under Texas law, when a party is successful in a breach of contract action, some attorneys’ fees must be awarded, though the “trial court has discretion to fix the amount of attorney’s fees.” World Help v. Leisure Lifestyles, Inc., 977 S.W.2d 662, 683 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 1998, pet. denied) (citing Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8)).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows a prevailing party in a breach-of-contract action to recover attorney’s fees.

Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Williams Alaska Petroleum, Inc. · filed 2013-07-10(8)

Further, as the prevailing party in a breach-of-contract action, Anadarko is entitled to attorney’s fees under Texas law. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 38.001(8).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees for breach-of-contract claims.

Concert Health Plan, Inc. v. Houston Northwest Partners · filed 2013-05-30(8)

All the claims advanced by the Hospital against Concert involve breach of the Provider Agreement. As such, reasonable attorney’s fees are recoverable for all of the Hospital’s claims. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.001(8).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) authorizes attorney’s fees for a successful claimant in a breach of contract suit.

E. Friedman & Associates, Inc. and Elliot Friedman v. ABC Hotel & Restaurant Supply, Inc. · filed 2013-06-26(8)

Section 38.001 provides that attorney‟s fees are recoverable in suits for recovery under a contract.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits a prevailing party on a breach-of-contract claim to recover reasonable attorney’s fees.

Dresser-Rand Company v. Bolick · filed 2013-07-18(8)

Because we have determined that Dresser-Rand was entitled to judgment as a matter of law in the trial court, we conclude that Dresser-Rand is entitled to attorney’s fees as a matter of law. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.001(8).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows a prevailing party in a breach-of-contract action to recover attorney’s fees.

Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Williams Alaska Petroleum, Inc. · filed 2013-08-06(8)

Further, as the prevailing party in a breach-of-contract action, Anadarko is entitled to attorney’s fees under Texas law. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 38.001(8).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) does not allow attorney’s fees when the claimant has no valid breach of contract claim.

TMM Investments, Limited v. Ohio Casualty Insuranc · filed 2013-09-17(8)

Because TMM thus did not bring a “valid claim” for breach of contract, it should not have been awarded attorney’s fees, and we reverse the district court’s determination to that effect. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (2013).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) does not allow attorney’s fees based on a breach of contract claim when the claimant’s judgment on that claim is reversed.

Berryman's South Fork, Inc. and Richard Berryman v. J. Baxter Brinkmann Internationial Corporation · filed 2013-11-20(8)

We concluded above that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim. Therefore, attorneys’ fees based on that cause of action cannot be recovered.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) requires an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing party on a breach of contract claim when the reasonableness of the fees is proved; the trial court has discretion to determine the amount.

Kay Lynn Maynard F/K/A Kay Lynn Maynard Booth v. Booth · filed 2013-11-27(8)

The trial court determined William breached the settlement agreement; therefore, an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party was mandatory if there was proof of the reasonableness of the fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) requires an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to a plaintiff who recovers on a valid contract claim.

Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Hyder · filed 2014-03-05(8)

An award of reasonable attorney’s fees to a plaintiff recovering on a valid claim founded on a written or oral contract is mandatory under Texas law. ... Because we have already concluded appellants breached the lease, we affirm the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees for a written contract claim, including a claim to enforce a contractual provision in an agreed divorce decree.

Kendrick v. Seibert · filed 2014-06-12(8)

Accordingly, Seibert’s suit included a claim for a written contract. ... Section 38.001 allows a party to recover reasonable attorney’s fees for such a claim.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits a party that prevails on a contract claim and recovers damages to recover reasonable attorney’s fees.

Cellular Sales of Knoxville Inc. v. McGonagle · filed 2014-07-15(8)

As a result, we also conclude that the record supports the jury’s award of attorney’s fees to Cellular Sales. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 38.001(8) (West 2008) (providing that a party may recover reasonable attorney’s fees if the claim is for an oral or written contract); Smith v. Patrick W.Y. Tam Trust, 296 S.W.3d 545, 547 (Tex. 2009) (“If attorney’s fees are proper under section 38.001(8), the trial court has no discretion to deny them.”); Sharifi v. Steen Auto., LLC, 370 S.W.3d 126, 152 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.) (stating that, to recover under section 38.001(8), a party must (1) prevail on his cause of action and (2) recover damages).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of attorney’s fees on a breach-of-contract claim.

Eugene v. McMahon v. Marcia Zimmerman, Individually, and the Zimmerman Law Firm, LLP · filed 2014-03-27(8)

There was a statutory basis for awarding Zimmerman attorney’s fees. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 38.001(8) (permitting recovery of attorney’s fees on breach-of-contract claim).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits attorney’s fees for a breach of contract claim when the claimant proves fraudulent inducement to defeat a release and enforce the original contract.

Anglo-Dutch Petroleum International, Inc. v. Case Funding Network · filed 2014-05-13(8)

Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in concluding that the release investors’ claims are for breach of contract and they are entitled to attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of attorneys’ fees from an individual or corporation when a plaintiff prevails on a breach of contract claim and recovers damages.

Classic Superoof LLC & Stanley Keith Lyles v. Bean, Donna K. · filed 2014-10-14(8)

To recover attorneys’ fees under section 38.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, a plaintiff must (1) prevail on a cause of action for which attorneys’ fees are recoverable ... and (2) recover damages. ... We have previously determined the evidence supports Bean’s breach of contact claim against Classic and the trial court’s damage award. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in awarding attorneys’ fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 permits a prevailing party in a breach of contract suit to recover reasonable attorney’s fees.

Uretek (USA), Inc. v. Ureteknologia De Mexico S.A. De C.V. · filed 2014-10-29

Both as a matter of Texas law and pursuant to the June 2010 amendment to the sublicense agreement, UdeM, as the prevailing party in a breach of contract suit, was entitled to recover its reasonable attorney’s fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows recovery of attorney’s fees for breach of contract claims.

Katy International, Inc. F/ka/ Emer International, Inc., Mengghui Zhang and Binghua Jiang v. Jiang · filed 2014-11-07(8)

Because we hold that Jinchun presented sufficient evidence of Emer International’s breach of contract, we affirm the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees against Emer International. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.001(8) (allowing recovery of attorney’s fees as to breach of contract claims).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows attorney’s fees for a successful breach of covenant claim that sounds in contract.

Smith v. Lawrence Reid, Royce Reid, Jennifer Heath and THL GP Inc. · filed 2015-06-24(8)

We further hold the Reids’ successful breach of covenant claim is equivalent to a Chapter 38 breach of contract claim.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) entitles the prevailing party in a breach of contract suit to attorney’s fees.

Dernick Resources, Inc. v. David Wilstein and Leonard Wilstein, Individually and as Trustee of the Leonard and Joyce Wil · filed 2015-07-01(8)

The prevailing party in a breach of contract suit is entitled to attorney’s fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits attorney’s fees for a claim by a co-signer seeking reimbursement for payments made on a promissory note.

Giles v. Carter · filed 2016-12-07(8)

Consequently, in liberally construing section 38.001 as we must, we find that Carter’s claim against Giles to recover money she paid as the accommodation party for Giles is a claim on “an oral or written contract.” See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 38.001(8) (West 2008).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 authorizes reasonable attorney’s fees for a party that prevails and recovers damages on a contract claim, and an award is mandatory when the fees’ reasonableness is proved.

Trinh v. Fatha Elmi and Med Solutions Pharmacy, Inc. · filed 2015-09-24(8)

Section 38.001 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code authorizes the award of attorney’s fees in a suit based on a written or oral contract. ... An award of attorney’s fees is mandatory under section 38.001 if there is proof of the reasonableness of the fees. ... The uncontroverted evidence established that Trinh incurred some amount of damages on his breach of contract claim and attorney’s fees based on that claim and, therefore, the jury’s award of no damages on his breach of contract claim and no attorney’s fees based on that claim is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows recovery of attorney’s fees for a contract claim.

Russell Caldwell D/B/A RW Caldwell Construction v. Jackie Wright · filed 2016-08-10(8)

Wright initially sued Caldwell for breach of contract. After significant time and resources were expended, Wright added, in April of 2013, a DTPA claim and claims for breach of implied and express warranties. Attorney’s fees are recoverable for all of these claims.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) entitles a prevailing party in a breach of contract suit to attorney’s fees.

State Farm Lloyds v. Ginger Hanson · filed 2016-06-30(8)

Because we have concluded that the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury’s liability finding,16 we necessarily reject State Farm’s argument that the jury’s attorney’s fee award should be reversed because Hanson did not prevail on her contract claim. ... The prevailing party in a breach of contract suit is entitled to attorney’s fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 permits recovery of attorney’s fees on a claim for an oral or written contract when the claimant prevails.

Martin, William v. PlainsCapital Bank · filed 2017-04-26

Section 38.001 of the civil practice and remedies code provides for the recovery of attorney’s fees if, among other things, a claim is for an oral or written contract. ... To the extent Martin argued PlainsCapital was not entitled to attorney’s fees because it had not prevailed on its claim, this argument now fails in light of this opinion.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows attorney fees for a contract claim, but does not apply to fees incurred to confirm arbitration awards.

Jeremie Gordon and Amber Arnold-Gordon v. James B. Nickerson and Julia A. Nickerson, Trustees of the Nickerson Revocable · filed 2017-04-27(8)

As noted above, however, the trial court’s award of attorney fees here was not ... predicated on a contract claim, but on the Nickersons’ efforts to confirm the arbitration awards. As such, section 38.001(8) does not apply.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 permits a prevailing party in a suit to enforce a contract to recover costs and attorney’s fees.

Lisa Kramer, F/K/A Lisa Kastleman v. Kastleman · filed 2017-11-03

Moreover, this provision simply restates the law that a prevailing party in a suit to enforce a contract under chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code may recover costs and attorney’s fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) authorizes recovery of attorney’s fees for a contract claim.

Land v. Land · filed 2018-07-19(8)

Attorney’s fees are recoverable for both claims. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (Vernon 2015) (fees recoverable for a contract claim); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.205 (Vernon Supp. 2017) (fees recoverable for a claim to divide undivided assets).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees on a valid oral or written contract claim.

Longhorn Integrity Inspection v. McC · filed 2018-09-14(8)

Finally, we conclude the district court properly awarded LIIS attorneys’ fees based on McCurdy’s breach of the modified agreement. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.001(8) (movant may recover reasonable attorneys’ fees on valid claim for oral or written contract).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows a party entitled to judgment on a breach of contract claim to recover attorney’s fees for that claim.

Coria v. Christopher Jide Ogidan and Moses Gbolabo · filed 2017-02-28(8)

Because appellant is entitled to judgment on her breach of contract claim, she may also recover her attorney’s fees. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 38.001(8) (West 2015).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of attorney’s fees for breach of a settlement agreement.

Lantek Communications, Inc. v. Peck · filed 2018-10-18(8)

Applying those principles, the unjustified breach of a settlement agreement necessarily exposes the breaching party to attorney’s fees for enforcement of the contract.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 permits recovery of attorney’s fees for a successful breach of contract claim.

Janice Su Allen, Individually and as Trustee of the Eagle Pass Living Trust v. Irwin · filed 2019-06-05

As noted above, Irwin did not abandon his breach of contract claim against Anglim. Instead, Irwin prevailed on that claim and was eligible to recover attorneys’ fees for that claim.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of attorney’s fees for enforcing a settlement agreement after an unjustified breach.

American Fisheries, Inc. v. National Honey, Inc. D/B/A National Commodities Co., or D/B/A NCC Group, Ltd., Jun Yang, Ind · filed 2018-08-07(8)

Accordingly, we conclude that American Fisheries’ “unjustified breach of a settlement agreement expose[d] [it] to attorney’s fees for enforcement of the contract.” See Garcia, 545 S.W.3d at 12 (citing TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 38.001(8) (West 2015)).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows recovery of attorney’s fees for breach of contract.

Caviness v. High Profile Promotions, Inc. · filed 2019-04-05(8)

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.001(8) (attorney’s fees for breach of contract). ... Because High Profile was successful on both of its theories of liability, it could recover all of its actual damages under either ground, but not both, and could recover all of its attorney’s fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows a party that prevails on a breach of contract claim to recover attorney’s fees.

Sherman Moore, Individually and D/B/A S & S Security Inc. and George Adams v. Patriot Security Inc. · filed 2018-03-08(8)

The motion was supported by an affidavit of its attorney that asserted a claim for attorney’s fees under section 38.001(8) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. ... Moore and S&S submitted no contrary evidence to create a fact issue on the matter of attorney’s fees and costs, nor did they challenge the reasonableness of the fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) entitles a party that prevails and recovers damages on a breach-of-contract claim to attorney’s fees.

James Construction Group, LLC, Primoris Services Corporation v. Westlake Chemical Corporation · filed 2019-12-17(8)

When a party prevails and is awarded damages on a breach-of-contract claim, it is entitled to attorney’s fees under section 38.001.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of attorney’s fees for a successful breach-of-contract claim.

Hossain Johari D/B/A Foxx Studio v. Ayva Center LLC · filed 2020-02-25(8)

Ayva was entitled to recover attorney’s fees due to prevailing on its claim for breach of contract. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (authorizing recovery of attorney’s fees for successful breach-of-contract claim).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows reasonable attorney’s fees on a successful breach-of-contract claim; a party whose claim fails cannot recover those fees.

Malone v. PLH Group, Inc. and Power Line Services, Inc. · filed 2020-04-07(8)

Because Malone did not prevail on his breach-of-contract claim, his claim for attorney’s fees under Section 38.001 on the Civil Practice and Remedies Code likewise failed.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) does not allow attorney’s fees when the claimant has not pleaded a breach of contract claim.

Key Equipment Finance, a Division of KeyBank Natio v. Cyr · filed 2020-06-11(8)

There is no question Plaintiff has not pled a claim for breach of contract and therefore cannot take advantage of the fee shifting provision under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.001(8).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 allows reasonable attorney’s fees for a successful breach of contract claim even when a separate Insurance Code claim also supports fees.

John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.) v. The Estate of Jennifer Lauren Wheatley c/o Louis A. Wheatley · filed 2020-09-22

Therefore, although the Estate is entitled to attorneys’ fees for its fourth counterclaim under § 542.060, the Estate may also recover under § 38.001 for the breach of contract counterclaim.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) entitles a party that prevails on a contract claim and recovers damages to reasonable attorney’s fees.

J.R. Richard Enterprises, Inc. D/B/A Richard's Total Backyard Solutions v. Claudia Viviana Niz and Sam Niz · filed 2020-12-17(8)

Thus, J.R. Richard was entitled to recover attorney’s fees under both section 38.001 and the parties’ agreement.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001 allows recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to a valid claim for an oral or written contract.

Eric Hood A/K/A Tim Sackett v. CIT Bank, NA · filed 2021-02-18

Civil Practice and Remedies Code chapter 38 allows recovery of attorney’s fees in breach-of-contract cases: “A person may recover reasonable attorney’s fees . . . in addition to the amount of a valid claim and costs, if the claim is for . . . an oral or written contract.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits reasonable attorney’s fees for a claim based on a written contract.

Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Dixon · filed 2021-04-05(8)

Because the note Dixon entered is a written contract, the Court finds that Wells Fargo is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows a party who obtains specific performance on a contract claim to recover reasonable attorney’s fees.

Desai v. Good Hope Missionary Baptist Church of Houston · filed 2021-04-15(8)

Since we have rendered judgment in favor of Desai on her equitable, specific performance claim, she is the prevailing party under both the contract and section 38.001(8).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) requires an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to a party that prevails on a breach-of-contract claim and proves the fees’ reasonableness.

Roy Upshaw and R&S Upshaw Franchising, LLC v. Lacado, LLC, Andrew K. Wilson, Cade Wilson, and Carrd, LLC · filed 2021-07-22(8)

Because Lacado prevailed on its breach-of-contract claim, it was authorized to recover its attorney’s fees. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8). When a prevailing party in a breach-of-contract suit seeks attorney’s fees, an award of reasonable fees is mandatory if there is proof of the reasonableness of the fees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) entitles the prevailing party in a breach of contract lawsuit to reasonable attorney fees and costs.

Aperia Solutions Inc v. OLB Group Inc · filed 2021-06-04(8)

As the prevailing party in this breach ... of contract lawsuit, Aperia is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs by ... statute.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees for breach of contract.

Bissell v. Legends Underground Utilities, Inc. · filed 2020-04-28(8)

Attorneys’ fees and costs are recoverable for breach of contract under Texas Law.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows a prevailing party on a written contract claim to recover reasonable attorney’s fees from a corporation.

Paisano Capital SA DE CV v. 23 Texas Produce Inc · filed 2019-07-18(8)

A prevailing party in a civil action may recover attorney’s fees from a corporation in a claim for a written contract. ... Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is granted in the amount of $9,991.00.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) entitles a prevailing party on a written contract claim to attorney’s fees from an individual or corporation; the award is not discretionary.

Wells Fargo Bank National Association v. Anthony · filed 2020-06-30(8)

A prevailing party in a civil action may recover attorney’s fees from an individual or a corporation in a claim under a written contract. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 38.001(8); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d)(2). While § 38.001(8) uses the term “may,” “the Texas Supreme Court has declared that attorneys’ fees under section 38.001 are not discretionary.” Kona Tech. Corp. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 225 F.3d 595, 603 n.2 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19, 20 (Tex. 1998)). The Court finds that Wells Fargo is entitled to attorney’s fees, the amount of which is to be determined by subsequent motion.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits a party that prevails on an oral or written contract claim to recover attorney’s fees.

HSU v. Conterra Services, LLC · filed 2021-03-11(8)

A party who prevails on a claim based on an oral or written contract may recover attorney’s fees. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 38.001(8). ... We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Conterra its reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees based on the evidence before it.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) allows attorney’s fees for a breach of contract claim that the opposing party judicially admitted was at issue.

John Nguyen and Jeslyn Tran v. Minh Nguyen and Nga Le · filed 2021-08-26(8)

Managers contend that “[t]his cause of action was brought in torts and not contract” and, thus, that Co-owners were not entitled to attorney’s fees under Section 38.001 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8). But Managers judicially admitted in their original answer that a breach of contract claim was at issue. ... We therefore overrule Managers’ fourth issue.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 38.001(8) permits reasonable attorney’s fees for an oral or written contract claim, but does not support appellate fees when the party brought no contract claim and did not request fees under the section.

Olivarez v. Garza · filed 2021-11-18(8)

However, cross-appellants did not file a breach of contract cause of action against Fela, and they did not request attorney’s fees under § 38.001(8). Compare id. § 31.002(e) with id. § 38.001(8). Therefore, cross-appellants are not entitled to appellate attorney’s fees on this basis, and we reject this argument.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Notes 1–150 of 685, oldest cases first.

348 more cases cited this section only in passing

These cases mention the section without interpreting it (a string cite, a footnote, background). Listed so you can see the full citation record, not just the annotated rulings.

American Airlines, Inc. v. Swest, Inc., the court applied former article 2226 to deny attorney's fees and mentioned Section 38.001 only in a recodification footnote. opinion →
Landon v. Jean-Paul Budinger, Inc., the court mentions Section 38.001 as a possible basis for attorney's fees but decides whether the trial court abused its discretion in reducing the award. opinion →
Texas Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Sealock, the dissent cites the section in discussing attorney's fees, but neither party disputed the availability of a fee award under it. opinion →
Melody Home Manufacturing Co. v. Barnes, a concurrence cites Chapter 38 generally as a source of attorney fees in contract actions without deciding a rule under § 38.001. opinion →
Strata Energy, Inc. v. Gavenda, the court cites the section as the current codification of the attorney’s fees statute applied in a prior appeal, then decides the prejudgment interest issue under another statute. opinion →
Aerospatiale Helicopter Corp. v. Universal Health Services, Inc., a dissent cited the section to support an attorney's fee award it would have ordered. opinion →
Dave Leonard Construction Company v. Duo Distributors, Inc., the court cites § 38.001(8) as the apparent basis for Leonard's fee request but denies fees for failure to follow § 38.002's procedure. opinion →
the Austin Area Teachers Federal Credit Union v. First City, Texas - Austin, N.A., Successor in Interest to First City B, the court cites § 38.001 as the start of the attorney's-fee provisions but applies other provisions when reviewing the fee award. opinion →
Lake LBJ Municipal Utility District v. Bennett Coulson & C.A.E., Inc., the court used section 38.001 as the successor to article 2226 while deciding whether article 2226 authorized attorney's fees against the District. opinion →
Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Vacuum Tanks, Inc., the court identifies § 38.001 as the basis for the district court's fee award but decides whether § 38.006 exempts the insurer from that award. opinion →
Cirrus Production Company v. Clajon Gas Company, L.P., a Limited Partnership, the court treats section 38.001 as the source of possible attorney fees while deciding the presentment and pleading requirements of section 38.002. opinion →
Eagle Insurance Company v. Gerald F. D'Angelo and Apple Dodge, Inc., the court cites the section in footnotes to unchallenged trial court conclusions awarding attorney's fees on contract claims. opinion →
James C. "Jim" Greene, D/B/A Gertrude's Pizza v. NCNB Texas National Bank, the court mentions the section as a basis the Bank asserted for attorney's fees, but awards fees under the lease provision. opinion →
City of El Paso v. Croom Construction Co., the dissent cites the section while describing another court's ruling; the majority decides the fee award under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. opinion →
Beckey v. Bank One Texas, N.A., the court cited the section while describing Beckey’s challenge to a deposit agreement, then rejected her argument without deciding the section’s rules. opinion →
Union Bankers Insurance Co. v. Shelton, a concurring and dissenting opinion cites the section as part of a range of attorney-fee provisions while discussing the costs an insurer may face. opinion →
Howell v. State, section 38.001 appears only in an unrelated opinion appended after the Howell decision; the Howell court did not address it. opinion →
Peveto v. D'ENTREMONT, the section appears only in a dissent arguing that the appellee should receive attorney’s fees. opinion →
IHOP Realty Corp., John Baird and J. Ken Masuda v. New Braunfels Factory Outlet Center, Inc. Edward K. Kopplow And Rob E, the court cites section 38.001 as the source of the requested attorney's fees but rejects the request because IHOP did not show presentment under section 38.002. opinion →
NRG Exploration, Inc. v. Frank E. Rauch, Cleo Rauch and R&R Resources, Inc., the court cites section 38.001 as the source of attorney's fees but denies recovery because NRG did not show presentment under section 38.002. opinion →
Juan Delgado and Dominga Delgado v. Austin National Bank, the court cited section 38.001 as part of a range of Chapter 38 provisions, then denied attorney's fees because the bank failed to prove presentment under section 38.002. opinion →
State Farm Life Insurance Co v. Beaston, the court quotes Section 38.001 in a footnote without deciding what it means or requires. opinion →
In the Interest of Striegler, the court discussed § 38.001 as an analogy while deciding an attorney's fee award under the Family Code. opinion →
Universe Life Insurance v. Giles, the opinion quotes a prior concurrence and dissent that mentions the section as background to its discussion of insurance bad faith. opinion →
Marre' v. United States, the court cites § 38.001 as part of a range of fee provisions while deciding entitlement to fees under the turnover statute. opinion →
Marre,et al v. United States, the court awarded fees under the turnover statute and cited § 38.001 only as part of a range of provisions governing that award. opinion →
Reinsurance v. Greenberg, the court mentions the section as a source of potential attorney’s fees while deciding whether the claim meets the federal amount in controversy requirement. opinion →
Bocquet v. Herring, the court cites Section 38.001(8) as an example while deciding how to review attorney fees awarded under the Declaratory Judgments Act. opinion →
Texas Dept Housing v. Verex Assurance Inc, the court quoted the district court’s citation to § 38.001 but decided the appeal under the local briefing rule and the rule governing extensions of time. opinion →
Venture Projects, Inc. D/B/A Concept Services and Matt Hamilton v. Jeff Morrison D/B/A JM Professional Services, the court cites § 38.001 in a footnote while addressing whether a tort claim is part of the attorney’s fee issue under § 38.002. opinion →
Mytech Corporation v. Marc A. Ausman John Boettiger, Jr. And Rick Jaros, the court cites the section for a general rule about contract claims but upholds the fee award under the parties' agreement. opinion →
Federated Mutual Insurance v. Grapevine Excavation Inc., the court cites § 38.001’s contract fee rule but reserves the attorney’s fees question for a later decision. opinion →
Federated Mutual Insurance v. Grapevine Excavation Inc., the court cited § 38.001 as background and certified the unresolved attorney’s fees question to the Supreme Court of Texas. opinion →
Bonner v. Allstate Insurance Company, the court cites Section 38.001 to distinguish a prior decision from Bonner's claim under the Insurance Code. opinion →
Texas Workers' Compensation Commission v. City of Eagle Pass, the court mentions § 38.001 only to identify the codification of a repealed attorneys’ fees statute while distinguishing a case about that earlier statute. opinion →
Greathouse v. Glidden Co., the court cites the section in a footnote concerning attorney’s fees but does not decide any rule under it. opinion →
Lyn-Lea Travel Corp. v. American Airlines, Inc., the court cited the section while reviewing an attorney's fee award, then vacated the award because the contract judgment required reconsideration. opinion →
Soliz v. Jerry Lee Cofer, Thomas Noralez, and Trinity Universal Insurance Company, the court overruled the attorney's fees issue based on its disposition of the other issues without deciding a rule under Section 38.001. opinion →
Scott Roeglin/Sandra Daves and Alfred Daves v. Sandra Daves and Alfred Daves/Scott Roeglin, the court cited the section for Roeglin's attorney's fee request but declined to consider that request after finding no agreement. opinion →
O'Gorman v. State, the section appears in an unrelated opinion fragment; the O'Gorman court did not address attorney's fees. opinion →
Beacon National Insurance Company v. Bob and Jean Glaze, the court cites § 38.001(8) as the basis for the fee request but denies fees under § 38.002(3)'s just-amount requirement. opinion →
Will Pawlik Enterprises, Inc. v. Frank Cavazos, Individually and D/ba/ Fenic and Fenic Co., Inc. and Fenic Company, the court cites the section as the basis for a party's attorney-fee request but does not decide its requirements. opinion →
HS Resources Inc v. Wingate, the court cites the section as a basis for requested attorney fees but vacates the fee ruling for reconsideration without deciding the section’s rules. opinion →
Rose Tristan, Individually and D/B/A Rose Cleaning Services and Olga Cristan v. C.A. Walker, Inc. and Any Unknown Indivi, the court identifies section 38.001 as the basis for the trial court's attorney-fee award but reverses the award under section 38.004. opinion →
Cargill, Incorporated v. Merit Distribution Services, Inc., the court notes that the section provides attorney's fees for a sworn account but holds that Cargill waived its challenge to the fee award. opinion →
Heafner v. Heafner, the court mentions the section in describing Fred’s argument, then holds that he failed to preserve his complaint about attorney’s fees. opinion →
Health Enrichment and Longevity Institute, Inc. D/B/A Brazos Oaks Personal Care Center And Linda S. Milam v. State, the court cited section 38.001 for a general rule about attorney's fees, then upheld the award under Health and Safety Code section 247.045(e). opinion →
Health Enrichment and Longevity Institute, Inc. D/B/A Brazos Oaks Personal Care Center And Linda S. Milam v. State, the court cites section 38.001 for the general need for fee authority but upholds the award under Health and Safety Code section 247.045(e). opinion →
Jacqueline C. Head, Individually and as Successor Trustee Under the FTW Living Trust v. Alfred L. Finley and Susan N. Fi, the court found that the fee award rested on the parties’ contract, so the arguments concerning Section 38.001 were irrelevant. opinion →
Dell Computer Corp. v. Rodriguez, the court recounts Dell’s attorney’s fees motion and the district court’s ruling without deciding a rule under the section. opinion →
Ex Parte Roger D. Pfeil, the court did not address attorney’s fees; the section appears only in a separate opinion appended to the text. opinion →
Fairmont Supply Company v. Hooks Industrial, Inc., the court cites § 38.001(8) as Hooks’s asserted basis for fees but decides which law governs under the contract’s choice-of-law provision. opinion →
Raman Chandler Properties, L.C., Villas at Caldwell Creek, Ltd., and Caldwell's Creek, Ltd. v. Caldwell's Creek Homeowne, the court declined to decide whether section 38.001 supported the fee award because chapter 37 independently supported it. opinion →
Moroch v. Collins, the court cites the section for a general rule about attorney's fees but upholds the award under the Family Code. opinion →
Doolin`s Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Clifford Young, Jr., the court quotes § 38.001 from Doolin's pretrial brief but decides whether Doolin's had a pending fee request and prevailed in the bill of review. opinion →
Palestine Water Well Services, Inc. v. Vance Sand and Rock, Inc., the court cites § 38.001 for the availability of fees on a contract claim, then decides the disputed demand requirement under § 38.002. opinion →
Dr. Gerald L. Froemming, Individually Gerald L. Froemming, D.D.S., Inc. And Gerald L. Froemming, D.D.S., P.A. v. Pe, the court cited section 38.001(8) alongside a judicial-notice provision while upholding attorney's fees awarded under the DTPA. opinion →
Aaron Rents, Inc. v. Travis Central Appraisal District, the dissent cites section 38.001 as a comparison while arguing about attorney’s fees under Tax Code section 42.29. opinion →
Aaron Rents, Inc. v. Travis Central Appraisal District, the dissent cites section 38.001 as a comparison while addressing attorney's fees under Tax Code section 42.29. opinion →
Kendziorski v. Saunders, the court cites the section as a possible basis for attorney’s fees and remands for the county court to decide whether any should be awarded. opinion →
Ray F. Wilson and Faye D. Wilson v. Clarence Wachsmann and Joyce Wachsmann, the court cites the section only while recounting the district court's award of attorney's fees. opinion →
Ray F. Wilson and Faye D. Wilson v. Clarence Wachsmann and Joyce Wachsmann, the court cites the section only while recounting the district court's award of attorney's fees. opinion →
Smith v. Duncan Land & Exploration, Inc., the court affirmed the attorney’s fees award under Rule 13 and expressly declined to decide whether section 38.001(8) also supported it. opinion →
Aaron Rents, Inc. v. Travis Central Appraisal District, the court cites section 38.001 as a comparison while deciding whether attorney's fees are mandatory under Tax Code section 42.29. opinion →
Aaron Rents, Inc. v. Travis Central Appraisal District, the court cites section 38.001 as a comparison while deciding whether Tax Code section 42.29 requires an attorney's fee award. opinion →
Aaron Rents, Inc. v. Travis Central Appraisal District, the dissent mentions § 38.001 only in a citation identifying the current codification of former article 2226 while discussing a different attorney-fee statute. opinion →
Aaron Rents, Inc. v. Travis Central Appraisal District, the dissent mentions a predecessor of section 38.001 only while comparing attorney’s fee statutes in its discussion of Tax Code section 42.29. opinion →
Aaron Rents, Inc. v. Travis Central Appraisal District, the court cites section 38.001 as a comparison while deciding whether Tax Code section 42.29 requires an award of attorney’s fees. opinion →
Kersey v. State, the Kersey opinion decides a competency issue; the discussion of Section 38.001 belongs to a different opinion appended to the text. opinion →
GuideOne Insurance Company v. Cupps, the court cites the section in a footnote while reversing the contract award because it found no breach. opinion →
Manuel W. Lowe and Barbara Lowe v. Lowe, the court cites § 38.001(8) as the source of attorney’s fees for contract claims but rejects the award because Brenda did not prove presentment under § 38.002. opinion →
Montemayor v. Ortiz, the court cited the section while using an earlier attorney’s fee award to determine whether that judgment arose from a contract debt or a tort claim. opinion →
Herve Gentile v. Patrizia E. Gentile, the court mentions section 38.001(8) as Patrizia's asserted basis for fees, then upholds the award without deciding whether that section applies. opinion →
Monroe Joshua, Vic Salinas and Thom Joshua Enterprises, L. L. C. v. Rocky C. Sanders and Rice Creek Farms Joint Venture, the court cites the section in footnotes about attorney’s fees but provides no decision about its rules. opinion →
C&K Investments v. Fiesta Group, the court mentions section 38.001 to distinguish the statute governing the requested appellate attorney’s fees. opinion →
State v. Gobert, the court cites § 38.001(8) alongside the partnership agreements’ attorney’s fee provision without deciding a rule of the statute. opinion →
Phillips v. Estate of Phillip O. Poulin, the court cites the section alongside a contractual attorney's fees provision while upholding the fee award without deciding a rule under the section. opinion →
St. Raphael Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Mint Medical Physician Staffing, LP D/B/A Prime Staff, the court cites the section as background for the attorney's fees claim while deciding whether the agreed judgment disposed of that claim. opinion →
STS Gas Services, Inc. v. Sid K. Seth AKA SIFCO, LLC AKA Shiva Investment First, LLC, the court cited section 38.001(8) as background and upheld the attorney's fee award under the lease's prevailing-party clause. opinion →
Energen Resources Corp. v. Golden Oil Co. (In Re Golden Oil Co.), the court cites the section as the basis for Energen’s fee request but decides only that the settlement was not an enforceable contract. opinion →
Pleasant v. State, the court dismissed Pleasant’s appeal under Rule 42.2; the Section 38.001 discussion belongs to a separate civil case appended to the text. opinion →
Smith v. Huston, the court cites the section to identify the trial court’s attorney’s fee award challenged on appeal. opinion →
McDorman v. Rogers, the court cites the section as an example of a statute authorizing attorney's fees, without applying it to the Directors' claim. opinion →
ERA Realty Group, Inc. v. Advocates for Children and Families, Inc., the court cites the section only when describing ERA’s request for attorney’s fees; it decides the challenge to Advocates’ fee award based on the evidence supporting that award. opinion →
Turner v. Turner, the court cited section 38.001(8) while deciding whether Linda had pleaded a claim for attorney's fees under the Agreement. opinion →
Big Wheel Development, Inc. v. Orange County Building Materials, Inc., the court cited Section 38.001 as a possible basis for attorney's fees but upheld the award under the parties' contract. opinion →
Bechtel Corporation v. Citgo Products Pipeline Company, the court cites the section as the basis for the attorney's fee award, then decides that the underlying promissory estoppel claim lacks compensable damages. opinion →
Bechtel Corporation v. Citgo Products Pipeline Company, the court noted the challenge to attorney’s fees under section 38.001(8) but decided that the promissory estoppel claim failed for lack of compensable damages. opinion →
Nazari v. Home Depot USA Inc, the court reports that the district court rejected the § 38.001 fee claim and that Home Depot did not appeal that ruling. opinion →
Canyon Regional Water Authority v. Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority, the court cites the section as a basis for Canyon Regional's attorney's fee request but decides the fee dispute under other law. opinion →
Saqer v. Ghanem, the court cited the section as a possible basis for attorney's fees but decided only whether the arbitrator had authority to award them. opinion →
Kleas v. BMC West Corporation, the court mentions the section as a basis for fees in the pleadings but upholds the fee award under the parties’ agreements. opinion →
Kleas v. BMC West Corporation, the court cited chapter 38 as a pleaded basis for attorney's fees but upheld the award under the parties' agreements. opinion →
Bechtel Corporation v. CITGO Products Pipeline Company, the court cites section 38.001(8) as a basis for the trial court's fee award, then decides whether CITGO could recover damages under promissory estoppel. opinion →
Danny L. Ferch//Cross-Appellant, William Baschnagel v. William Baschnagel and the Insurance Network//Cross-Appellee, Dan, the court cited § 38.001 to identify contract claims as eligible for attorney's fees, then decided the presentment issue under § 38.002. opinion →
McAlester Fuel Company v. W. Scott Carpenter D/B/A Carpenter & Associates, the court cites the section for a general fee-recovery rule while reviewing the evidence supporting an attorney's unpaid invoices and legal assistant charges. opinion →
in Re: Gladewater Healthcare Center, in Its Assumed or Common Name, the Gladewater court decided whether mandamus review was available for an expert-report ruling; the Section 38.001 discussion belongs to a separate opinion included. opinion →
Jackson v. Carlson, the court cites the section as background to a fee request it denies because Carlson did not file a notice of appeal. opinion →
James T. Jackson, Sr. v. Carlson, the court cites the section for the availability of attorney's fees but denies Carlson's request because he did not file a notice of appeal. opinion →
Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding, the opinion mentions § 38.001 only in a citation describing another court’s ruling on attorney’s fees. opinion →
Ratcliff v. LHR, Inc., the court cites section 38.001 as a basis LHR asserted for attorney's fees, then affirms the award without deciding the section's requirements. opinion →
Intercontinental Group Partnership v. KB Home Lone Star L.P., the court cited Section 38.001 while deciding whether the parties' contract authorized attorney's fees. opinion →
Choy v. Graziano Roofing of Texas, Inc., the court cites the section in a footnote without deciding any rule about attorney’s fees. opinion →
Speegle v. Harris Methodist Health System and Harris Methodist Fort Worth, the court mentions section 38.001 as a basis the Hospital pleaded for attorney’s fees, then decides whether the fees had to be segregated. opinion →
San Jacinto Title Services of Corpus Christi, LLC and Mark S. Suver v. Pratt, the court cites the section for the general rule on attorney's fees, then upholds the award as equitable damages. opinion →
Serreva Page v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, a dissenting justice cites the section as additional support for an attorney’s-fee award based on the parties’ contract. opinion →
Barry v. Donald Jackson and Karen Jackson, a dissenting justice cited the section as additional support for an attorney's-fee award based on the parties' contract. opinion →
in Re John D. Hanby, the court lists Weatherford’s request for attorney’s fees under the section but decides whether its counterclaims prevent Hanby’s nonsuit. opinion →
Barry v. Jackson, a dissent cites the section as additional support for its proposed attorney's fees award. opinion →
Barry v. Donald Jackson and Karen Jackson, a dissent cites the section after concluding that the parties’ contract entitled the Jacksons to attorney’s fees. opinion →
in Re John D. Hanby, the court lists Weatherford’s request for attorneys’ fees under the section while deciding whether its counterclaims barred Hanby’s nonsuit. opinion →
C. Green Scaping, L.P. AND Westfield Insurance Company v. Westfield Insurance Company AND C. Green Scaping, L.P., the court decided that Government Code § 2253.074 governed the payment bond fee request and did not construe § 38.001. opinion →
Darryl G. Wright v. Atlantic Credit and Finance, Inc., the court rejected a challenge to the demand evidence; its footnote cites § 38.001(3) while describing a separate presentment rule. opinion →
Offshore Drilling Co. v. Gulf Copper & Manufacturing Corp., the court mentions the section as Gulf Copper’s proposed ground for fees but awards fees under the contract. opinion →
SAFESHRED, INC. v. Martinez, the court cited the section while deciding whether a Sabine Pilot claim sounds in tort and permits punitive damages, and attributed the ruling on attorney's fees to another court. opinion →
Safeshred, Inc. v. Louis Martinez, III, the court cites the section while deciding whether punitive damages are available for a Sabine Pilot claim. opinion →
Williams v. State, the court cites the section while reasoning that Sabine Pilot claims sound in tort and can support punitive damages. opinion →
Silver Lion, Inc. v. Larsen, the court mentions the section as background and decides attorney’s fees under the Guaranty’s prevailing-party clause. opinion →
Wafia Hanif and Mohammed Hanif Shakoor v. Clarksville Oil & Gas Co., Inc., the court cites Section 38.001 among the provisions governing attorney’s fees for a turnover order but decides the fee award under Section 31.002. opinion →
Underwriters at Lloyds of London v. Robert Harris, Individually and D/B/A Harris Garage, the court cites Section 38.001 while recounting another case, then decides Harris’s attorney’s fees under the Vehicle Storage Facility Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act. opinion →
Schlapper v. Forest, the court cites section 38.001 for a general rule about attorney’s fees but decides the fee request under sections 16.034 and 37.009. opinion →
Schlapper v. Forest, the court cites section 38.001 for a general rule about attorney's fees but decides the fee request under sections 16.034 and 37.009. opinion →
Gary Kimmons and Kathryn Kimmons v. Susan Hirsch, Individually and as of the Estate of Jay D. Hirsch, the court cited the section while deciding whether the parties’ agreement barred attorney’s fees. opinion →
Abatement Incorporated, Alan Manring and Gary Laughlin v. Williams, the court cites the section to contrast attorney’s fees available in a breach of contract suit with the remedies available in a TWC wage claim. opinion →
Mohammad A. Behzadpour and AB Land Company v. Gloria Bonton and Lawrence Bonton, the court cited the section for the Bontons’ attorney’s fees request but reversed on a settlement authority issue without deciding fees. opinion →
Bluelinx Corporation v. Texas Construction Systems, Inc., the court held that any error in awarding fees under Chapter 38 was harmless because Bluelinx did not challenge the separate basis for the fee award. opinion →
Valdez v. Bruce Robertson, Jr. and Dorothy H. Mello, the court mentions the section as Jerry’s asserted basis for fees, then denies his request because there is no evidence he submitted a compensation claim to the trial court. opinion →
Fairways Offshore Exploration, Inc. v. Patterson Services, Inc. and Cudd Pressure Control, Inc., the court cites section 38.001(8) to identify the source of the attorney’s fees while deciding whether those fees must be included in a supersedeas bond under section 52.006. opinion →
Norris v. Donna Darlene (Norris) Scheffler, the court cites Section 38.001 only to contrast it with the Family Code provision governing the attorney’s fees award. opinion →
HMC Hotel Properties II Limited Partnership v. Keystone-Texas Property Holding Corporation, the court cites the section for background while deciding whether the Lease’s attorney’s fees clause covers Keystone’s claims. opinion →
Avdeef v. National Auto Finance Company, the court cited § 38.001 in a footnote as an example of a law encouraging parties to settle disputes before litigation. opinion →
Johnson v. David Smith, Sharri Smith and Alpine Industries, Inc., the court affirmed the fee award under the lease and expressly declined to decide whether section 38.001 authorized it. opinion →
Stanley Shook// Terry Walden and Joy Walden v. Terry Walden and Joy Walden// Stanley Shook, Patrick Jaehne and S&J Endea, the court cites section 38.001 while recounting the district court’s attorney’s fee award, without deciding a rule under that section. opinion →
Sewing v. Steven Wayne Bowman as Personal Representative of the Estate of William C. Bowman, a dissent cites the section to argue that Bowman could not recover attorney’s fees. opinion →
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Coastal Refining & Marketing, Inc., Coastal Offshore Insurance Limited and, the court cited section 38.001 as a possible basis for attorney’s fees but affirmed the award under the Declaratory Judgments Act without deciding entitlement under section 38.001. opinion →
Cajun Constructors, Inc. v. Velasco Drainage District, the section appears only in the dissent’s discussion of attorney’s fees; the majority remanded the fee issues without deciding its rules. opinion →
Sonerra Resources Corporation v. Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co., the court cited the section for Sonerra’s request for attorney’s fees, then denied fees because Sonerra lost its indemnity claim. opinion →
Bankcard Processing International, L.L.C. v. United Business Services, the court cites the section as background to its decision awarding attorney’s fees under the parties’ contract. opinion →
Mutual Concepts, Incorporated v. First National Ba, the court cites the section to establish a conflict between Texas and Nebraska fee law, then holds that Nebraska law governs the fee claim. opinion →
Helping Hands Home Care, Inc. D/B/A at Home Healthcare, Johnny James Grice v. Home Health of Tarrant County, Inc. D/B/A, the court cites section 38.001(8) for written-contract fee eligibility and resolves the fee request under section 38.002’s presentment requirement. opinion →
Williams v. Employers Insurance Company of Nevada F/K/A Amcomp Assurance, the court cites § 38.001 only as part of the chapter supporting Williams’s request for attorney’s fees and does not decide the fee request. opinion →
Frank Keathley and Melissa Keathley v. Corbitt Baker, Carroll Bobo D/B/A United Country Bobo Realty and Molly Bobo D/B/A, the court mentioned Section 38.001 while deciding that the contract governed the attorney’s fee award. opinion →
Lopez v. Los Cielos Homeowners Association, Inc., the court describes Section 38.001 generally but bases its attorney’s fee ruling on Section 5.006 of the Property Code. opinion →
Richard Whatley, Individually v. O.F. Jones III, Individually, D/B/A Law Office of O.F. Jones Iii, the court mentions Section 38.001 while rejecting Jones’s argument that the attorney’s-fee judgment could stand without a new hearing. opinion →
Kleas v. Clark, Thomas & Winters, P.C., the court cites the section only while reporting the trial court’s award of additional attorney’s fees. opinion →
Malcom G. Dyer v. Hidalgo County, Texas, the court cites section 38.001 only to describe Dyer’s attorney’s fees argument and declines to decide it. opinion →
the Peterson Group, Inc., PGI Development Group, LP, and Wellington Yu v. PLTQ Lotus Group, L.P. and Cubo Group, L.L.C., Justice Keyes discusses section 38.001 in dissent while arguing that the attorney’s fees award should be affirmed. opinion →
Bloch v. SAVR Communications, the court held that res judicata barred the claim for attorney’s fees under chapter 38 because it arose from the same injury as the wage claim. opinion →
City of New Braunfels, Texas v. Carowest Land, Ltd., the court reports Carowest’s request for attorney’s fees under Chapter 38 without deciding whether § 38.001 permits them. opinion →
Ahmad v. Mathur, the court cites the section only while describing Mathur’s claim for unpaid legal fees. opinion →
Larry Long, Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. Miken Oil, Inc. and Mike Tate, Appellees/Cross-Appellants, the opinion reproduces the trial court's conclusion about Section 38.001 but does not itself decide the attorney's fees issue. opinion →
in Re United Services Automobile Association, the court cited Section 38.001 while recounting the trial court’s reasoning, then rejected the fee award because breach of contract had not been established as a matter of law. opinion →
Highland Capital Management, L.P. v. Daugherty, the court cites the section as the basis for the fee request while deciding the amount of a supersedeas bond. opinion →
Walnut Retail Center General Partner, LC v. LBL, Ltd., the court cites section 38.001 for comparison while deciding attorney’s fees under the parties’ agreement. opinion →
Bill Miller Bar-B-Q Enterprises Ltd. v. Faith H. Gonzales, the court cites section 38.001 as an example of a statute that distinguishes attorney’s fees from costs while construing Texas Labor Code section 21.259. opinion →
Jamshed v. McLane Express, INC. D/B/A the C. D. Hartnett Company, the court reports that Hartnett requested fees under the section, then decides whether the evidence supported the fee award without construing the section. opinion →
Hometown 2006-1 1925 Valley View, L.L.C. v. Prime Income Asset Manangement, L.L.C., the court cited the section as background and upheld the attorney’s fees under the Guaranty’s fee provision. opinion →
Guadalupe Flores, Ernesto Flores, Blanca Flores, Rosalinda Magaña, Arturo Flores, Maria Flores, Juan Flores, and Fernand, the appellants cite the section to request attorney’s fees in their reply brief. opinion →
Chavez v. Martinez, section 38.001 appears in a party’s argument for attorney’s fees; the opinion contains no court ruling on it. opinion →
Petrohawk Properties, L.P., and P-H Energy, L.L.C. v. Jones, the court cited Section 38.001 while finding that Petrohawk had not preserved its objection to attorney fees. opinion →
Long Island Village Owners Association, Inc. v. Berry, Berry cites the section in his appellate brief to support his request for attorney's fees; the opinion contains no decision by the court. opinion →
Helms v. Swansen, the appellant cited the section in her brief to support her argument about attorney’s fees; the text contains no appellate ruling. opinion →
Frank Keathley, Individually and Dba Top Shelf Antiques v. J.J. Investment Company, L.T.D., the court mentions Section 38.001 to explain that Baker's attorney's fee award rests on the contract. opinion →
Trinity Materials, Inc v. Carroll Sansom, James Sansom, and Robert Coe, Trinity invoked the section in its motion for rehearing to seek attorney’s fees; the opinion contains no court ruling on the section. opinion →
American Idol, General, LP D/B/A the REO, and Randy Hanson A/K/A Randall Hanson v. Pither Plumbing Co., Inc., the appellee cites the section in its brief to defend the trial court’s attorney’s-fee award; no appellate court ruling is provided. opinion →
Ha Duong Nhu and D&H Restaurant Equipment v. Hunan Ranch Corporation, the parties cite the section in their pleadings and appellate brief to support requests for attorney’s fees; the text contains no court decision on it. opinion →
Dallas National Insurance Company v. Calitex Corp., Elshir Enterprises, L.P. and Thomas, L.P., the court cites the section as the basis for Calitex’s requests for attorney’s fees but does not decide its application. opinion →
Abdullatif v. Erpile, LLC and Ali Choudhri, the court cited the section as a source of requested attorney’s fees while deciding whether those fees counted toward the county court’s jurisdictional amount. opinion →
Coastal Motorcars, Ltd. D/B/A BMW of Corpus Christi v. Mary Lou Brown and Mary Alice Garcia, the section appears in the appellant’s argument about attorney’s fees and in the trial court’s order, but the opinion contains no appellate ruling on it. opinion →
Adeel Zaidi, A. K. Chagla, Prestige Consulting, Inc., and Apex Katy Physicians – TMG, L.L.C. v. Pankaj K. Shah and Apex, the opinion reproduces a trial court judgment that lists the section among several grounds for requested attorney fees. opinion →
Farkas v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. And Brice Vander Linden & Wernic, P.C. N/K/A Buckley Madole, P.C., the appellant requested attorney fees under the section in his brief; the opinion contains no court ruling on that request. opinion →
Perry D. Felix D/B/A Han's Laser Technology Co. v. Prosperity Bank, Prosperity Bank invokes the section in its brief to argue for attorney’s fees; the opinion contains no ruling by the court. opinion →
Ha Duong Nhu and D&H Restaurant Equipment v. Hunan Ranch Corporation, the appellee cites the section in its brief to argue that its contract claim supports attorney’s fees. opinion →
Rhino Contractors, LLC v. Vulcan Construction Materials, LP, the section appears only in a party’s argument and pleading seeking attorney’s fees, with no court ruling on it. opinion →
Baylor University Medical Center v. Greeson, the section appears only in the appellee’s brief’s index of authorities, which contains no decision by the court. opinion →
Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.// RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II, the section appears in an appellant’s brief arguing against attorney’s fees, but the opinion contains no appellate court decision. opinion →
Republic Petroleum LLC and Republic Petroleum Partners, LP v. Dynamic Offshore Resources NS LLC and W&T Offshore Inc., section 38.001 appears only in editorial headnotes; the opinion reports the jury’s attorney-fee award without deciding the section’s requirements. opinion →
Lopez v. Bailon, the appellee cites the section in a brief defending the trial court’s attorney-fee award; the text contains no decision by the appellate court. opinion →
Venture Cotton Cooperative and Noble Americas Corp. v. Freeman, the court discusses Section 38.001 while explaining its earlier ruling, then leaves the enforceability of the attorney’s-fee limits to the arbitrator. opinion →
Saxon v. Grove Club Lake, Inc., the section appears in the appellee’s brief as an argument about attorney’s fees, not in a decision by the court. opinion →
Nate D. Sanders, Inc. AND Baumgardner Funeral Home, Inc., and Allen S. Baumgardner, Sr. v. Robert Edward Lee Oswald, a party cites the section in a motion for new trial, but the opinion contains no ruling by this court on it. opinion →
in Re Daniel W. Warren, Beneficiary of the Daniel Steven Weiner 1996 Trust, the section appears only in the beneficiary’s request for attorney fees. opinion →
Rose Gipson-Jelks v. Gipson, the court cites the section to explain why the attorney’s fees award required evidence of reasonableness. opinion →
www.urban.inc. v. Drummond, the appellant cites Section 38.001 in a reply brief to support its request for attorney’s fees; this text contains no court ruling. opinion →
Hofer Builders, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company as Subrogee of United Rentals, Inc., the appellant cites the section in its brief to argue that attorney’s fees are recoverable for a breach of contract claim; the text contains no appellate court decision on the section. opinion →
David Tubb and Superior Shooting System, Inc., Appellants/Cross-Appellees v. Aspect International, Inc. and James Sterli, the appellants cite the section to argue that they should receive attorney’s fees; this brief contains no decision by the court. opinion →
Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.// RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II, RLJ cites the section in its appellate brief to argue for attorney’s fees; the opinion contains no court decision on the section. opinion →
Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.// RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II, the opinion is a party’s appellate brief that lists the section in its table of authorities, without a court ruling on it. opinion →
Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.// RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II, RLJ cites the section in its argument for attorney’s fees, but the opinion contains no ruling by the court. opinion →
Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.// RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II, the opinion argues for attorney’s fees under the section but contains no ruling by the court. opinion →
Texas Ear Nose & Throat Consultants, PLLC, Joseph Edmonds, Newton Duncan and James Albright v. John K. Jones M.D., the court notes that appellants withdrew their Chapter 38 presentment argument. opinion →
Nadir N. Ali and Mumtaz Ali v. Flessner Enterprises, Inc., the opinion is the appellants’ brief, which invokes the section to challenge attorney’s fees but contains no decision by the appellate court. opinion →
Juan 0. Lopez D/B/A J.L. Construction Co. v. Dave H. Bucholz and Mary A. Bucholz, the appellees’ brief mentions the section while recounting Lopez’s argument about attorney’s fees; it contains no ruling by the court. opinion →
Shirley Adams, Charlene Burgess, Willie Mae Herbst Jasik, William Albert Herbst, Helen Herbst and R. May Oil & Gas Compa, the section appears only in the index of authorities, with no ruling about attorney's fees. opinion →
in Re National Lloyds Insurance Company, Wardlaw Claims Service, Inc. and Ideal Adjusting, Inc., the court cites the section as a basis for the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fee claims while deciding whether the defendants’ fee information is discoverable. opinion →
Feysal Ayati-Ghaffari and Irana Hagnazari v. Hazawiperi Jackie Gumbodete and Jose Anaya, the court mentions section 38.001 as a basis for the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fee request but does not decide any rule under the section. opinion →
EXCO Operating Company, LP v. McGee, the citation appears in an appellant’s reply brief describing another court’s decision, not in this court’s own decision. opinion →
Nadir N. Ali and Mumtaz Ali v. Flessner Enterprises, Inc., the appellee cites the section in its brief to defend the trial court’s attorney-fee award; this text contains no appellate court decision. opinion →
League City v. Texas Windstorm Insurance Association, League City cites the section in its brief to support its request for attorney’s fees; the opinion contains no court ruling on the section. opinion →
Persimmon Ridge Partners EO, L.P., Russ Vandenburg, and Martha Vandenburg v. Mae, section 38.001 appears only in a summary of another court’s decision about attorney’s fees against government entities. opinion →
Calleja-Ahedo v. Compass Bank, the appellant’s brief argues that the Bank cannot recover attorney’s fees under the section; the opinion contains no decision by the court. opinion →
Handwerker Hren Legal Search, Inc. Debra Hren And Neil Handwerker v. Recruiting Partners GP, Inc. D/B/A Kinney Recruitin, the court cited section 38.001 while distinguishing a prior decision from its ruling on attorney’s fees under the UDJA. opinion →
Primo v. Rothenberg, Earlier version of the Primo v. Rothenberg decision; the later version is judged separately. opinion →
Primo v. Rothenberg, Earlier version of the Primo v. Rothenberg decision; the later version is judged separately. opinion →
Enzo Investments, LP v. White, Earlier version of the Enzo v. White decision; the substitute opinion is judged separately. opinion →
Smith v. Lawrence Reid, Royce Reid, Jennifer Heath and THL GP Inc., Earlier version of the Smith v. Reid decision; the later version is judged separately. opinion →
Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. v. Horizon Health Corporation, Earlier version of the Acadia v. Horizon decision; the later version is judged separately. opinion →
Lopez v. Adam Huron D/B/A Adam's Mexican Food Products, the appellant cites the section in his brief to argue against an attorney’s-fee award. opinion →
Metso Minerals Industries, Inc. v. Maverick Aggregates, Inc., the section appears only in Crisp Industries' counterclaim as support for its requests for attorney's fees. opinion →
Starbranch v. Crowell, the court cites § 38.001 alongside § 38.003 while discussing the presumption that usual and customary attorney's fees are reasonable. opinion →
EXCO Operating Company, LP v. McGee, the appellee discusses the section in a brief urging the court to reject another court’s interpretation; this filing contains no ruling by the court. opinion →
EXCO Operating Company, LP v. McGee, the appellee cites the section in a brief opposing a motion to supplement; the text contains no court ruling on the section. opinion →
Bob E. Woody v. J. Black's, LP And J. Black's GP, LLC, the section appears in the appellant’s brief, an attached earlier opinion, and the trial court’s judgment, but the opinion contains no decision by the current court on it. opinion →
Lakeway Regional Medical Center, LLC and Surgical Development Partners, LLC// Lake Travis Transitional LTCH, LLC N/K/A L, the appellants cite the section in their argument that the attorney’s fee award should be reversed. opinion →
David Tubb and Superior Shooting System, Inc., Appellants/Cross-Appellees v. Aspect International, Inc. and James Sterli, the section appears in the appellees’ argument about attorney’s fees, not in a ruling by the court. opinion →
Shirley Adams, Charlene Burgess, Willie Mae Herbst Jasik, William Albert Herbst, Helen Herbst and R. May Oil & Gas Compa, the plaintiffs cite the section in their request for attorney's fees, but the court does not decide its requirements. opinion →
EXCO Operating Company, LP v. McGee, EXCO’s counsel cites the section in a letter asking the court to consider an attorney’s fees issue; the text contains no ruling by the court. opinion →
Deana A. Pollard Sacks v. Thomas F. Hall and Thomas F. Hall, D.D.S., M.S. P.A., the court cited section 38.001(8) as the source of contract attorney’s fees but deleted the award because Dr. Hall failed to plead and prove presentment under section 38.002. opinion →
Landa v. Farris, the section appears only in the plaintiff's request for attorney's fees, with no court ruling on it. opinion →
Ted B. Lyon, III v. Building Galveston, Inc., D/B/A Building Solutions, the opinion lists the section in a table of authorities without discussing its rules. opinion →
Hoang v. Trevor Gilbert and Jorja Gilbert, the citation appears in a party’s brief arguing that attorney’s fees were sought as damages under a hold harmless agreement. opinion →
State Farm Lloyds v. Ginger Hanson, the section appears in State Farm’s reply brief as support for its argument about attorney’s fees, not in a decision by the court. opinion →
Garden Ridge, L.P. v. Clear Lake Center, L.P., the section appears only in Clear Lake’s appellate brief as support for its attorney’s fees arguments. opinion →
Bob E. Woody v. J. Black's, LP And J. Black's GP, LLC, the appellees cited the section to support their request for attorney’s fees, but the opinion contains no ruling by the court on it. opinion →
Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Barrow-Shaver Resources Company, Carrizo cites the section in its brief to argue that the fee award should fall if the contract judgment is reversed. opinion →
Dudley Construction, LTD., Richard Mark Dudley, and Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. ACT Pipe & Supply, Inc., the dissent cites the section in a footnote to support its view that attorney fees are recoverable on a sworn-account claim. opinion →
Kohler v. Chiquillo, the court cited the section as a basis for attorney’s fees but did not review the fee award. opinion →
Daugherty v. Highland Capital Management, L.P., the court treated section 38.001 as an alternative basis pleaded for fees and upheld the fee award under the contracts. opinion →
Jeremie Gordon and Amber Arnold-Gordon v. James B. Nickerson and Julia A. Nickerson, Trustees of the Nickerson Revocable, the section appears in the appellees’ brief as support for their request for attorney’s fees, but the text contains no decision by the court. opinion →
First Cash, Ltd. v. JQ-Parkdale LLC, the section is discussed in a party’s appellate brief, but the opinion contains no decision by the appellate court. opinion →
David A. Thomas and Westgate International Diversified Energy Services Company, LP v. Burbank & Sutherland, LP and Shawn, the court cites the section to identify the basis for the fee award while deciding whether that award belongs in the supersedeas bond. opinion →
Marrocco v. Hill, Earlier version of the Marrocco v. Hill decision; the later version is judged separately. opinion →
Kartsotis v. Richard L. Bloch, Individually and as a Trustee of the Richard and Nancy Bloch Family Trust, and Nancy, Earlier version of the Kartsotis v. Bloch decision; the later version is judged separately. opinion →
George E. Rhymes Jr. and Rhymes Industrial Filtration & Consulting, LLC v. Filter Resources, Inc., Earlier version of the Rhymes v. Donalson decision; the later version is judged separately. opinion →
David Tubb and Superior Shooting System, Inc., Appellants/Cross-Appellees v. Aspect International, Inc. and James Sterli, Earlier version of the Tubb v. Aspect decision; the later version is judged separately. opinion →
Securus Technologies Inc v. Global Tellink Corporation, the court distinguishes a prior § 38.001 fee ruling while deciding what proof was required for attorney fees sought as contract damages. opinion →
Geo-Tech Foundation Repair v. Leggett, the court cites the section only when describing Leggett’s request for attorney’s fees in his petition. opinion →
Bartush-Schnitzius Foods Co. v. Cimco Refrigeration, Inc., the court cites the section in describing Cimco’s claim for attorney’s fees but leaves the fee issue for the court of appeals to address on remand. opinion →
Chambers-Liberty Counties Navigation District v. State, the court cites the section while describing the State’s request for declaratory relief. opinion →
Sullivan v. Abraham, the section appears only in a table of authorities, with no court decision about it. opinion →
Becker v. Continental Motors, Inc., the court cited the section as a basis for the magistrate judge’s fee award and reversed that award after rejecting the breach-of-warranty claim. opinion →
Lantek Communications, Inc. v. Peck, the section appears in an appellee’s brief arguing for attorney’s fees, not in a decision by the court. opinion →
Basic Energy Services, L.P. v. EXCO Resources, Inc., the court cited the section while deciding whether the parties’ contract required proof that attorney’s fees were reasonable. opinion →
Miller v. Jeremy J. Walker, D/B/A Maverick Wealth Management, the court notes that the arbitration panel relied on section 38.001 for attorneys’ fees, but Walker did not contest that statutory basis on appeal. opinion →
Douglas v. Taylor Sims and Dallas Performance, LLC., the appellees cite the section in their brief to support the trial court’s attorney’s fee award; this text is not a court decision. opinion →
Willie James Haynes, II and Brita Michelle Haynes A/K/A Brita Michele Haynes v. Hawkes, the court mentions the section only when recounting Hawkes’s attorney’s fee request in the underlying suit. opinion →
Lori DeAngelis and Laurie Robinson v. Protective Parents Coalition, Jennifer Olson, Deborah Logsdon, Jayne Peery, Marie, the court cites Section 38.001 as persuasive support while deciding whether Section 27.009 requires appellate attorney’s fees. opinion →
JEM International, Inc. v. Warner Properties, L.P., the court cites the section to note that fees were available for Warner’s original contract claim while deciding a challenge to its DTPA fee award. opinion →
Lori DeAngelis and Laurie Robinson v. Protective Parents Coalition, Jennifer Olson, Deborah Logsdon, Jayne Peery, Marie, the court cites Section 38.001 as an analogy while deciding whether the TCPA requires appellate attorney’s fees. opinion →
Republic Capital Group, LLC v. Jason Roberts Eden Farms Ltd. Ashley & Jason Inc. Zachary Potts Northwoods Energy, LLC. C, the court cited the section while explaining that the attorney’s fees were awarded under the parties’ agreement. opinion →
Texas Black Iron, Inc. v. Arawak Energy International Ltd, the court cited section 38.001 as the basis for contract attorney’s fees but reversed the award because Arawak had not established presentment under section 38.002. opinion →
Smith v. Barnhart, the court cites the section only while recounting Barnhart’s request for attorney’s fees in his petition. opinion →
Wichita County, Texas v. Environmental Engineering & Geotechnics, Inc., the court cites section 38.001 while contrasting attorney’s fees with the document-production costs it reviews under Rule 205.3(f). opinion →
Jcb, Incorporated, D/B/A Conveying & Power Transmission Solutions v. the Horsburgh & Scott Company, the court mentions section 38.001 only while recounting JCB’s argument about attorney’s fees in breach-of-contract suits. opinion →
Thomas Oilfield Services, LLC/Cross-Appellee v. Albert Clark/Cross-Appellant, the court cited § 38.001 while declining to address Clark’s attorney’s-fee cross-issue. opinion →
Vortek Aviation LLC and Wayne Schmitz v. Krachinski, the court affirmed the attorney’s fee award on an unchallenged alternative ground without deciding whether section 38.001 permits fees against a limited liability company. opinion →
Hilburn v. Storage Trust Properties, LP, the court cited the section in a footnote but declined to decide whether Hilburn could recover attorney’s fees. opinion →
Wal-Mart Stores Texas LLC v. Shirey, the court mentions the section only in describing Shirey’s request for appellate attorney’s fees, which it could not consider because she had not filed a notice of appeal. opinion →
Plastronics Socket Partners, Ltd. v. Hwang, the court cites § 38.001(8) as the basis for Plastronics’ fee request but decides whether the presentment requirement under § 38.002 was met. opinion →
NA v. Logan, the court cites § 38.001 as a possible basis for attorney’s fees but defers the fee request until Plaintiff files a supported motion. opinion →
Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, Not in its individual capacity but solely as trustee, on behalf of AERO Mortgage L, the magistrate judge cited the section in a recommendation concerning attorney’s fees that the district court had not yet adopted. opinion →
John Emmanuel D/B/A First Americo Auto Sale & Repair v. Izoukumor, the court cites the section when recounting the attorney’s fees award, then decides that the challenge to the award was not preserved for appeal. opinion →
William Eggemeyer, Diane Eggemeyer, Bo Eggemeyer, and Sharyland Distribution & Transmission Services, LLC v. Jac, the court cites Section 38.001 to explain the scope of Section 38.004’s judicial-notice rule, which did not apply to the fee claim before it. opinion →
VDF FutureCeuticals, Inc. v. Freed Foods, Inc., the court mentions § 38.001(8) only while listing the plaintiff’s claims and does not decide its attorney’s fee rules. opinion →
SDB & Associates, Inc. D/B/A Boatright Hardwood Floors and Samuel Boatright v. N v. Metro IV, Ltd., the court cites the section as background and decides the fee dispute under the lease’s terms. opinion →
Allstate Insurance Company v. Irwin, the citation to Section 38.001(8) appears in a dissent, which does not state the court’s holding. opinion →
Rose v. Aaron, the court cites § 38.001 while leaving the Aaron Parties’ attorneys’ fees issues for reconsideration by the bankruptcy court. opinion →
Impact Fluid Solutions LP v. SA, the court mentions the section only to identify Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and does not decide that request. opinion →
Burgess v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, the court cites § 38.001 while describing the attorney’s-fee issue decided in Brainard, then decides whether Burgess’s extracontractual claims can proceed. opinion →
Eminent Commercial, LLC v. Digitalight Systems, Inc., the magistrate judge recommended attorney’s fees under the section, but the district court had not adopted the recommendation. opinion →
Patriot Contracting, LLC and Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Shelter Products, Inc., the court recounts Shelter’s request for attorney’s fees under Chapter 38 without deciding any rule of section 38.001. opinion →
BBVA USA F/K/A Compass Bank v. Francis, the court cites the section when remanding for a determination of attorney’s fees without deciding whether BBVA is entitled to them. opinion →
Pogo Resources, LLC v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, the court mentions the section only when describing the attorney’s fees requested in the complaint. opinion →
Pat Stevens and Cheryl Stevens v. Avent, the court cites section 38.001 as the source of attorney’s fees for a breach of contract claim while addressing presentment under section 38.002. opinion →
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Rodriguez, the court noted that the Bank pleaded Section 38.001 as a basis for attorney’s fees but remanded the fee claim for insufficient proof without deciding a rule of that section. opinion →
Sunchase IV Homeowners Association, Inc. and Board v. Atkinson, the court cites Section 38.001 only to contrast its fee requirement with the condominium fee provision it applies. opinion →
Pogo Resources, LLC v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, the court mentions the section only while describing the attorney’s fees the plaintiff requested. opinion →
BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Billan-Pahal Corporation, the court cites the section in comparing state fee laws, then applies California law to the fee request. opinion →
Township of James v. Rice, the court cited § 38.001 within a quoted Texas decision while interpreting Michigan’s Right to Farm Act fee provision. opinion →
Tom Wright Construction, LLC D/B/A Built Wright Construction v. Bolton Steel Erectors, the court mentions section 38.001 as a basis for requested fees but upholds the fee award under the parties’ arbitration agreement and rules. opinion →
Graham v. Savage, the magistrate judge recommended denying fees under § 38.001, but the district court had not adopted that recommendation. opinion →
Damti v. ACET Global, LLC, the court mentions the section as a basis for requested attorney’s fees while deciding whether a TCPA motion was timely. opinion →
Miller v. Brightstar International Corp., the court cites § 38.001 while recounting a Texas appellate decision, then applies Florida law to Miller’s attorney’s fees request. opinion →
Kirsten Hanna, Upside Up Properties, LLC, and Upside Up Ventures, Inc. v. M. Matthew Williams David Howell Law Firm of M, the court mentions § 38.001 only when noting that Hanna did not challenge the trial court’s denial of fees under Chapter 38. opinion →
Branch v. Laura McCaskill, Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage NRT Texas LLC, Full Scope Property Inspection PL, the court cited § 38.001 while recounting appellees’ fee request but upheld the award under the contract. opinion →
Drywall Elements, LLC v. Edward Wolff & Associates, LLC, the court mentions the section only when recounting the plaintiff’s request for breach-of-contract attorney’s fees. opinion →
Mary Arthur James P. Arthur Arthur Holdings, L.P. Arthur P. Holdings, L.P. Arthur J, Holdings., Inc.. Legonite, Inc.. An, the court cites the section while describing Blackburne’s alternative request for attorney’s fees, without deciding a rule under it. opinion →
Billing Associates Northwest LLC v. Addison Data Services LLC, the court cites the section as background on fees for contract claims, then denies fees under the parties’ agreement. opinion →
Megatel Homes III, LLC v. Woodhull Ventures 2015, L. P., the court mentions Section 38.001 as part of Woodhull’s fee request but decides attorney’s fees under Rule 91a and the TCPA. opinion →
MidFirst Bank v. Johnson, the court recites § 38.001’s fee rule but defers any decision on attorneys’ fees until a supported motion is filed. opinion →
Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as Trustee of Finance of America Structured Securities Acquisition Trust 2019-HB1, the magistrate judge recommended attorney’s fees under the section, but the district judge had not adopted the recommendation. opinion →
Synergy Advisory Services LLC v. ClearPrism LLC, the court leaves the claim for attorney’s fees under the section unresolved. opinion →
Sisam v. Strategic Funding Source, Inc., the court cites the section to identify potentially recoverable contract attorney’s fees, then decides whether the fees count toward the amount in controversy for federal jurisdiction. opinion →
In the Matter of the Marriage of Doug J. McCarver and Dana J. McCarver v. the State of Texas, the court held that citing Section 38.001 in a summary judgment motion did not prevent an attorney’s fee award under the Texas Family Code. opinion →
Synergy Advisory Services LLC v. ClearPrism LLC, the court awarded fees under the settlement agreement and expressly declined to decide whether § 38.001 also authorized them. opinion →
Garcia v. Ranft-Garcia, the court mentions section 38.001 as a possible basis for attorney’s fees but expressly declines to decide whether it applies. opinion →
DeGomez v. Haworth, the court cites the section while recounting DeGomez’s request for attorney’s fees. opinion →
National Signs, LLC v. Hollenberg, the court cites the section only in a footnote to Hollenberg’s request for attorney’s fees. opinion →
Bellamy v. Allegiance Benefit Plan Management, Inc., the court cites the section only in a footnote listing statutes related to Bellamy’s pleaded claims. opinion →
Steel Surplus, Inc. v. Adobe Capital, LLC and Ryan Greene, the court cites the section only in connection with Steel Surplus’s request for attorney’s fees. opinion →
Havercombre Ventures Limited v. Spheric Assurance Company, LTD., the court considered the request for §38.001 fees as one allegation bearing on whether the claims fell within the policy’s forum-selection clause. opinion →
Ali Choudhri and Memorial Park, LLC v. Smith, the court cites § 38.001 in recounting Choudhri’s argument but declines to decide whether the arbitrator’s fee award complied with it. opinion →
In Re Synergy Global Outsourcing, LLC v. the State of Texas, the plaintiff's brief cites the section only to compare its effective-date language with H.B. 19. opinion →
In Re Synergy Global Outsourcing, LLC v. the State of Texas, the petition lists the section in its index of authorities, but the opinion contains no court decision about it. opinion →
Synergy Global Outsourcing, LLC v. Hinduja Global Solutions, Inc., and HGS Healthcare, LLC, the document is a party’s mandamus petition and lists § 38.001 only in its index of authorities. opinion →
In Re ETC Filed Services, LLC v. the State of Texas, a party’s response cites the section as an example of a nonjurisdictional statute while arguing about Business Court removal. opinion →
Anne Coyle // Stephen Casey v. Chad Walker and Alisha Flood // Cross-Appellee, Anne Coyle, the court cites the section while distinguishing another case, then decides whether a cashier’s check satisfied the parties’ settlement obligation. opinion →
PHH Mortgage Corporation v. Dye, the magistrate judge cited the section in an unadopted recommendation to consider attorney's fees after judgment. opinion →
Hannah Sprague and Delmus Meek v. Erwin J. Roberts and Julie Roberts, the court mentions the section as background while reviewing the evidence supporting an attorney’s fee award sought under the parties’ contract. opinion →
Synergy Global Outsourcing, LLC v. Hinduja Global Solutions, Inc., and HGS Healthcare, LLC, the opinion is the appellant’s brief, and § 38.001 appears only in its index of authorities. opinion →
Ferrari Financial Services, Inc. v. Mills, the magistrate judge recommended denying attorney’s fees without prejudice, leaving the decision to the district judge. opinion →
Quantum Plus, LLC; And Lonestar Hospital Medicine Associates, P.A.// Hospital Internists of Austin, P.A. v. Hospital Int, the court mentions section 38.001 as the basis for HIA’s request for attorneys’ fees but does not decide its application. opinion →
Swan Packaging, Inc. v. Beer Nuts, Inc., the magistrate judge recommended attorney’s fees under § 38.001, but the district judge had not adopted the recommendation. opinion →
In Re ETC Filed Services, LLC v. the State of Texas, the court cites an amendment to the section only as an example while interpreting the business court Act’s effective date. opinion →
Vida v. Asset Protection Auto, LLC aka Asset Protection, L, the Bankruptcy Court discussed § 38.001 while recommending an award of attorney’s fees, but did not enter a final ruling. opinion →
Lone Star NGL Product Services LLC, (In Its Own Capacity and as Assignee) v. EagleClaw Midstream Ventures LLC and CR Per, the appellant cites Section 38.001 as a comparison in its argument about a different law’s timing provision; this text is a brief, not a court decision. opinion →
SignAd, Ltd. v. Texas Department of Transportation, SignAd cites the section in its appellate brief as a basis for attorney’s fees; the text contains no court ruling on it. opinion →
Joseph Hankins and Theresa Hankins v. Mark C. Burnett and B.J. Burnett, the court cites the section as a possible basis for attorney’s fees but remands without deciding whether fees are recoverable. opinion →
The State of Texas; The City of El Paso, Texas; The Transit Authority of El Paso CTD, Texas; And the County of El Paso,, the appellants cite Section 38.001 in their brief as an analogy for their claim for attorney fees under Section 2107.006 of the Texas Government Code. opinion →
Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Company v. Bullnose Masonry LLC, the court cites the section as a possible basis for a later attorney’s fees motion but does not decide whether fees are recoverable under it. opinion →
Simmons v. Simmons, the court mentions the section in explaining why it denied prejudgment interest, without deciding its attorney’s-fee rules. opinion →
Elite Concepts, Inc. v. David Field and Bria Field, the appellant cites the section in its brief to seek attorney's fees; the opinion contains no appellate court ruling on it. opinion →
Gibbons & Bravos Surveying LLC and Jean Michael Bravo v. Gary A. Gibbons, Patricia A. Gibbons, Gibbons Surveying and Map, the court reports the trial court’s citation to § 38.001 et seq. and leaves the scope of fee recovery for remand. opinion →
Foday S. Fofanah and Hawa Fofanah v. Rockwall Rental Properties, the opinion is Appellee’s brief invoking the section to defend the trial court’s attorney’s fee award. opinion →
Edinger v. Stillwaters Pool Company, LLC, the court cites the section to explain the basis for SPC’s attorney’s-fee request in its amended petition. opinion →
In Lux Research v. Hull McGuire Pc, the court denied attorney fees under D.C. law after deciding that Texas law did not govern the contract. opinion →
Frost Bank v. Hickman II, the court recounts the bank’s claim for attorney fees under the section but reserves the fee ruling while deciding dischargeability under federal bankruptcy law. opinion →
MVT Services, LLC v. Great West Casualty Company, the opinion reports an earlier fee entitlement ruling and cites the section as background while deciding the amount of fees. opinion →
BarZ Adventures Inc v. Patrick, the court names section 38.001 et seq. as an additional fee source without deciding this section’s own requirements or scope. opinion →
Maxitransfers LLC v. Envios La Costenita 1 Inc, the court awards fees under the parties’ agreements and cites the section only through a general description in another decision. opinion →
Daniel Maust McReynolds A/K/A McReynoldsCo; And M Terra, LLC v. Alma Franco Trucking LLC, D/B/A A. F. Trucking, the court cited the section while declining to reach a conditional challenge to the attorney’s fees award. opinion →
Trident Homes, Inc. and Ryan Strickland v. Ramesh Kainthla and Neetu Kainthla, the Kainthlas’ brief argues that the section entitles them to attorney’s fees; the opinion contains no ruling by the court. opinion →
Tutor v. McLain, the appellant cites the section in a brief to argue that the trial court’s attorney’s-fee award should be reversed. opinion →
Neeley v. Lyft, Inc.; Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company; And Liberty County Mutual Insurance Company, the court cited Section 38.001 to explain why Neeley's pleading asserted a breach-of-contract claim, then decided that claim based on the insurance policies' coverage. opinion →
Grapevine Group Concrete Contractors, Inc. (Cross-Appellee) v. YC Partners, Ltd. D/B/A Yantis Company and Yantis Corpora, the court cited the section while remanding attorney’s fee awards after reversing the breach of contract judgment. opinion →
Sebastian Linke (Cross-Appellee) v. Kyle Folmer (Cross-Appellant), the court cited the section while deciding that an unresolved fee request under the parties’ contract left the judgment nonfinal. opinion →
Nancy Bender Fuhrman v. Fuhrman, the opinion reproduces the trial court’s attorney-fee conclusion citing the section but shows no appellate decision about the section. opinion →
P&E Solutions, LLC v. Crescent Power Systems, the court cites § 38.001 as the source of contract attorney’s fees but decides a presentment timing issue under § 38.002. opinion →
In re RIC (Austin), LLC, the court said attorney’s fees were likely available but deferred deciding them until after further briefing. opinion →
RIC (Austin) LLC, the court discussed § 38.001 as a possible basis for attorney’s fees but left the fee issue for further briefing. opinion →
Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc. v. Franco, the court used the list in § 38.001 only to decide whether a judicial-notice procedure under § 38.004 applied to fees sought under another statute. opinion →
in Re: Earnest Carl Wilson, the court reversed the underlying contract judgment and left any attorney-fee award for the trial court to reconsider on remand. opinion →
Jack Besteman and Pam Besteman v. Jerry Pitcock and Joanne Pitcock, the court addressed the contract option and remanded attorney fees for reconsideration after changing the underlying judgment. opinion →
Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. v. Chappell, the court cited the section when remanding for the trial court to consider attorney’s fees, without deciding whether fees were recoverable under it. opinion →
Gleason & Messenger Farms, LLC v. James Scott D/B/A Lonestar Steel Buildings, the court identifies § 38.001 as one basis for Lonestar’s fee request and remands the fee award because the underlying claims require a new trial. opinion →
Neira v. Sculley, the court cites § 38.001 only as Potter's apparent basis for seeking fees on his unsuccessful quantum meruit claim. opinion →
Noah S. Bunker, Paul Carrell, Everett Brew Houston, Jr., W. Andrew Buchholz, Scott J. Leighty, Jad L. Davis, and Holly C, the section appears in copies of other Texas opinions, while this court makes no decision about attorney's fees under it. opinion →
Cash Biz, LP, Redwood Financial, LLC, Cash Zone, LLC Dba Cash Biz v. Hiawatha Henry, Addie Harris, Montray Norris, and R, the court cites the section to describe Texas’s default rule on attorney’s fees while deciding whether a contractual fee provision makes an arbitration agreement unconscionable. opinion →

Which of these rulings fit your facts?

Describe your situation under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001. Ezel checks it against the cases on this page and answers with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace