Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo, Inc. v. Hamrick
Court of Appeals of Texas
125 S.W. 3d 555 (2003)
- Written by Sheri Dennis, JD
Facts
Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo, Inc. (Livestock Show) (defendant) operated a livestock show in which school-aged children supervised by their parents entered farm animals. T.L. Hamrick, two other children, and their respective parents (plaintiffs) were among those who entered animals. All child and parent entrants signed forms giving Livestock Show the right to test their animals for drugs. The entrants also signed forms stating that they would abide by the Livestock Show rules and that they did not give their animals unauthorized drugs. Livestock Show subsequently tested the plaintiffs’ animals and determined that the animals tested positive for illegal drugs. As a result, Livestock Show disqualified the plaintiffs and banned them from participating in any future shows. The plaintiffs sued Livestock Show, alleging that Livestock Show had violated provisions of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). At trial, the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs. Livestock Show appealed, arguing that the parent-plaintiffs were not consumers under the DTPA and therefore could not properly bring an action under the DTPA. The trial court was not persuaded by this argument and found in favor of the plaintiffs. Livestock Show appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Yeakel, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.