Case Citator › Thigpen v. Locke

Thigpen v. Locke

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of Texas
Citation
363 S.W.2d 247
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
45 of 45
Citing cases (total)
45
Treatment dates
2006
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. The confirmed limit on Thigpen v. Locke is listed below. Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa held that a later breach, combined with slight circumstantial evidence, may help prove fraudulent intent despite Thigpen's categorical statement.
More on how this was screened

All 45 flagged citations have been read. Later courts continue to apply Thigpen's rules on informal fiduciary relationships and reading a document before signing it.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

45 later cases cite Thigpen v. Locke; 45 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Thigpen v. Locke?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Texas Supreme Court confined Thigpen's categorical statement about later breach: breach alone does not prove original fraudulent intent, but breach combined with slight circumstantial evidence can support that finding.

    Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa · Supreme Court of Texas · filed

    But while breach alone is no evidence of fraudulent intent, breach combined with “slight circumstantial evidence” of fraud is enough to support a verdict for fraudulent inducement. ... But see Thigpen v. Locke, 363 S.W.2d 247, 252 (Tex.1962)
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Thigpen v. Locke and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, 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