Staff Industries, Inc. v. Hallmark Contracting, 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 payment bond executed for the protection of subcontractors and mate-rialmen did not fall under sections 53.201-53.211 of the Texas Property Code because the bond did not indicate an attempt or intent to comply with this part of the Hardeman Act
• court applied excessive demand doctrine to section 38.001 attorney’s fee claim in breach of construction contract action
• “A contract, however, is ambiguous when its meaning is uncertain and doubtful or it is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning.”
• court applied excessive demand doctrine to section 38.001 attorney's fee claim in breach of construction contract action
• connecting recovery of attorney’s fees and pre-judgment interest
• connecting recovery of attorney's fees and pre-judgment interest

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).