noting that when the Texas Supreme Court refuses a writ, it thus gives “full approval to the opinion in that case and making the opinion as authoritative as one of its own opinions”
How later courts described this case
- noting that when the Texas Supreme Court refuses a writ, it thus gives “full approval to the opinion in that case and making the opinion as authoritative as one of its own opinions”
- "[T]he duty of this Court [is] to examine and consider all of the evidence bearing on the controlling issues, and having done so to decide whether there is evidence of probative value to support the answers made by the jury to the issues."
- ″We may consider only that evidence, if any, which, viewed in its most favorable light, supports the jury findings, and we must disregard all evidence which would lead to a contrary result.″
- “We may con- but is moving away from broad definitions sider only that evidence, if any, which, of duty and toward particularized defini- viewed in its most favorable light, supports tions of duty
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Texas Brine Corp. v. Lofton, 1985 Tex. App. LEXIS 7563 (1985)
The Biggers case is distinguishable.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Griffin
dissenting.
I have not changed my mind about this case and dissent from its present disposition.
*367 I have set out my views at great length in the former majority opinion, and I adopt it as the dissent in this cause. * ’
To me, the evidence shows beyond controversy that the Ford “jumped out” in front of the respondent’s bus, as testified to by petitioners’ own witness, Mitchell. When this happened (and without any negligence on the part of the bus driver) there did not remain sufficient time and distance for the bus driver to have done anything to avoid the collision. Therefore, the Bus Company should not have any damages adjudged against it.
Opinion delivered May 22, 1957.
The majority opinion on first hearing, by Justice Griffin, is now entered as his dissent in the present case, as follows: