law-presuit-demand | condition precedent for bringing suit | failure to satisfy conditions precedent
--> attorney's fee claim, claim under insurance policy, presuit demand in
shareholder derivative action

Boondoggles Corp. v. Yancey  (Tex.App.– Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 3, 2006)(by Radack)
employment law, employment contract, breach of contract, BoC, restaurant manager, modification of
contract, contract construction, ambiguous contract, bonus pay, calculation of damages,
remittitur, res
judicata, no identity of claims, parties, different capacities, attorney fees, disclosure of witnesses,
discovery not filed, CoD]
Chief Justice Radack
Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Taft and Nuchia
01-05-00185-CV Boondoggles Corporation v. Johnathan Yancey
Appeal from 234th District Court of Harris County (
Hon. Reece Rondon)
(“Having concluded that the trial court properly found that Boondoggles never paid Yancey the
required by his contract of employment and that Yancey demanded payment before filing this action, the
trial court correctly ruled, in conclusion of law seven, that Yancey’’s right to collect was due.”)