Galbraith Engineering Consultants, Inc. v. Pochucha

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that construing the word limitations broadly “would defeat the recognized purpose for statutes of repose”
• recognizing that statutes of repose reflect legislative judgment as to inadequacy of traditional statutes of limitations for some types of claims
• recognizing that statute of repose signals legislative decision that traditional limitations period is not adequate with respect to particular kind of claim at issue
• holding that section 33.004(e) revives claims “otherwise ‘barred by limitations’ under certain limited circumstances”
• ruling that the term \limitations” in section 33.004 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code did not extend to statutes of repose \[b]ecause application of the revival statute in [that] instance effectively [would have] rendered] the period of repose indefinite”
• concluding that Chapter 33 does not equate responsibility with liability and stating that “a defendant may designate a responsible third party even though that party possesses a defense to liability, or cannot be formally joined as a defendant, or both”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).