Hennigan v. IP Petroleum Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a verified complaint relates back to, and satisfies any deficiencies in an unverified questionnaire
• holding that “Hennigan’s averment that she was confused in responding to deposition questions raises a genuine issue of material fact regarding Hennigan’s gender discrimination claim.”
• concluding that party did not make a judicial admission in her deposition testimony, where she claimed she was confused in responding to deposition questions
• holding “a verified complaint filed outside of the 180- 15 day time limit relates back to, and satisfies any deficiencies in an unverified questionnaire filed within the 180-day limit, therefore satisfying the 180-day jurisdictional requirement of section [21.202(a)]”
• holding “a 3 Section 21.201(e) provides that a “complaint may be amended to cure technical defects or omissions, including a failure to verify the complaint or to clarify and amplify an allegation made in the complaint.” TEX. LAB. CODE § 21.201(e
• explaining difference between judicial admissions and quasi-admissions, which are a party’s testimonial declarations contrary to that party’s prior position, and requirements for quasi-admissions to be treated as judicial admissions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).