Benchmark Engineering Corp. v. Sam Houston Race Park

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the statute’s plain meaning requires the affiant to describe the facts giving rise to. the claim
• noting that “the trial court is not required to ignore the obvious” with regard to what constitutes engineering practice
• contrasting statutory requirements for certificates of merit with standards governing admissibility of trial and summary-judgment evidence
• disagreeing with Owens and holding certificate of merit need not incorporate or refer to a standard of care
• interpreting 2005 version of section 150.002(a) and rejecting defendant’s argument that affiant was required to practice in engineering sub-specialty of “drainage and drainage design”
• interpreting prior version of section 150.002, and holding that engineer did not need to practice in the “engineering sub-specialty” of “water resources”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).