Caruso v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the Texas Supreme Court would hold that an e-mail with a signature block constitutes a signed writing
• predicting that the Texas Supreme Court would hold that a series of e-mails satisfies Rule 11’s “in writing” requirement, including e-mails exchanged by agents or attorneys of the parties
• predicting that the Texas Supreme Court Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 15 would hold that a series of e-mails satisfies Rule 11’s “in writing” requirement, including e-mails exchanged by agents or attorneys of the parties
• making an Eerie guess that a manually typed name on an email or an automatically attached signature block to an email constitutes an electronic signature
• venturing an “Erie guess” that the Texas Supreme Court would consider typed names and signature blocks in emails as signatures
• discussing legal effect of email signature under Uniform Electronic Transactions Act and citing cases

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).