Rangel v. Lapin

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming summary judgment against client because the client “did not offer expert testimony from which one could infer that the underlying case would have had merit…”
• setting forth “suit-within-a-suit” requirement for legal negligence claims arising from prior litigation
• offered legal expert, but failed to present engineering, medical, or biomechanics expert testimony to show he would have prevailed in underlying products liability action
• \It is not the function of a court of appeals to abrogate or modify established precedent. That function lies solely with [the Texas Supreme] Court.\
• exemption applies to legal services

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).