Texas Appellate Court Reverses Summary Judgment in No-Contest Clause Case
The court reversed a summary judgment based on a no-contest clause, according to a report by NatLawReview.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 30, 2026, 7:08 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 30, 2026, 7:08 p.m. ETFirst report
Texas Appellate Court Reverses Summary Judgment in No-Contest Clause Case
A Texas appellate court has reversed a summary judgment in a case involving a no-contest clause, according to a report by the National Law Review. The court's decision, issued in case No. 10-23-00187-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 9682, found that the lower court's ruling was in error.
The case, which has been adjudicated with the appellate court finding liability, centered on the interpretation and application of the no-contest clause. The National Law Review reports that the court reversed the summary judgment based on the no-contest clause, indicating that the clause's application was not as the lower court had determined.
Further details of the ruling were not provided in the report.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
- Court Reversed Summary Judgment Based A No-Contest Clausenatlawreview.com
Revision history
- Version 130 Aug 2026, 23:23current
First published.
- Version 130 Aug 2026, 23:08current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.