Elledge v. Friberg-Cooper Water Supply Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that statements in prior Texas Supreme Court cases were judicial dicta that the court of appeals should have followed
• explaining that breach of contract claims “fall under the four-year statute of limitations”
• stating that “two-year limitations period applies to unjust enrichment claims”
• rejecting court of appeals’s determination that supreme court’s prior statement was obiter dictum because although prior statement not “essential to the outcome,” it “should have been followed”
• disagreeing with the lower court’s characterization of certain of the Court’s statements as dicta, but in any event holding that “[o]ur statements . . . though not essential to the outcomes in [the cited precedent], should have been followed.”
• “Unjust enrichment claims are governed by the two-year statute of limitations.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).