Skip to main content

Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority v. Kraft

Tex. App.—3rd Dist.January 11, 2001No. 03-00-00190-CVCited 9 times
Defendant WinGuadalupe-Blanco River Authority$64,400 at issue
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Aboussie, Kidd, Patterson
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The court affirmed the jury verdict awarding $64,400 in damages to the property owner in this condemnation case, rejecting the appellant's challenge to the expert witness methodology.

What This Ruling Means

I don't have enough information from the provided excerpt to write an accurate summary of Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority v. Kraft. The excerpt you've shared doesn't contain the actual court ruling details, case facts, or the court's decision - it only shows basic case information like the court name, filing date, and that it involved employment law. To provide you with a helpful, accurate summary that explains: - What dispute occurred between the parties - How the court ruled and why - What this means for workers I would need the actual text of the court's opinion or a more detailed excerpt that explains the facts of the case, the legal issues involved, and the court's reasoning and decision. If you can provide more details from the actual court ruling, I'd be happy to write a clear, plain-English summary for workers.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.