Baker Hughes, Inc. v. KECO R. & D., INC.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that statute of limitations was unconstitutional retroactive statute as applied because it destroyed a vested right to assert a matured statute-of-limitations defense
• holding that appellate courts must review all of the summary judgment grounds on which the trial court actually rules, whether granted or denied, and which are dispositive of the appeal
• holding that procedural or remedial statutes may not be applied to pending suits at the time they become effective if doing so would destroy or impair rights that vested before the statute’s effective date
• holding that procedural or remedial statutes may not be applied to pending suits at the time they become effective if doing so would destroy or impair rights that vested before the statute's effective date
• holding that in reviewing an appellant’s points of error challenging the propriety of a trial court granting summary judgment, the court of appeals should consider appellee’s cross point challenging the denial of appellee’s summary judgment motion
• stating that it is well settled that a statute may not retroactively destroy a party's right to a limitations defense, which becomes vested after the claim is barred by limitations

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).