Dunham Engineering, Incorporated v. the Sherwin-Williams Company

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding section 150.002(a)(3) was satisfied where expert’s affidavit indicated that through practice, research, and teaching, he was familiar with legal requirements and industry customs regarding competitive bidding on public works projects like those at issue
• upholding certificate of merit identifying errors in bid process and concluding errors violated professional engineering duties
• rejecting argument that affiant’s knowledge must relate to particular area of specialty
• explaining abuse of discretion includes failing to correctly apply the law
• “[I]n light of the broadened language included in the 2009 amendment, these [earlier] cases have very limited applicability when construing the 2009 -version of section 150.002.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).