James V. Mazuca & Associates v. Schumann

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that in the absence of actionable misrepresentations, the defendant’s “silence amounts to nothing more than potentially negligent omissions, but falls short of the affirmative deception required by the DTPA”
• \Expert testimony is not required if the attorney's lack of care and skill is so obvious that the trier of fact can find negligence as a matter of common knowledge.\
• `Expert testimony is not required if the attorney's lack of care and skill is so obvious that the trier of fact can find negligence as a matter of common knowledge.'

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).