Timpte Industries, Inc. v. Gish

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 no-evidence motion must specifically identify the challenged elements to satisfy Rule 166a(i)
• holding that a no-evidence motion must specifically identify the challenged elements to satisfy Rule 166a(i)
• holding that a no-evidence motion must specifically identify the challenged elements to satisfy Rule 166a(i)
• holding that a no- evidence motion must specifically identify the challenged elements to satisfy Rule 166a(i)
• holding that movant for no evidence summary judgment need only identify each element challenged
• concluding that a summary judgment motion was sufficiently specific based, in part, on the fact that the non-movant “responded thoroughly as to both elements, indicating his understanding of [the movant’s] motion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).