Case law

Texas West Oaks Hospital, LP v. Williams

55 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1033 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 29, 2012

Under that tenet, a qualifying phrase should be applied only to the portion of the sentence “immediately preceding it.” City of Dallas v. … See id. § 406.033(a), (d) (discussing limited defenses and employee burden of proof in establishing negligence).

Martin v. Robinson, 67 Tex. 368 (Tex. 1887)

67 Tex. 368 · Texas Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1887

The main purpose of the plaintiffs was to establish their title, and to obtain possession of three tracts of land situated in different counties. … deemed it necessary, at the time his administration was granted, to fix a period after which administration should not be opened, and it would, seem that, in such case, courts ought not to assume to exercise a power which clearly

Perryman v. Spart an Tex. Six Capital Partners, Ltd.

546 S.W.3d 110 · Texas Supreme Court · Apr 27, 2018

Fuller , 568 S.W.2d 845 , 847 (Tex. 1978) (holding that venue provision in the Family Code "clearly" intended its use of "shall" to be mandatory) (citing Chisholm v. … "Shall establish" is not similar to "shall lie"; it does not indicate permission, it denotes a requirement.

Hicks v. Faust

109 Tex. 481 · Texas Supreme Court · May 16, 1919

In brief, is such action *488 by the State Board of Education a condition precedent to the exercise, by the school board of an independent school district, of a qualified statutory right, power, and authority to sell such … related back to and made Brown’s contract with the school trustees in all respects valid and binding from its inception, and that, as a legal consequence, Brown acquired an interest, or equity, or an inchoate title, or a qualified

Nationwide Insurance Company v. Mohamad Elchehimi, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Khaled Elchehimi and Lukman Elchehimi, Minors

Texas Supreme Court · Mar 28, 2008

To survive summary judgment, Elchehimi must raise a fact issue that his vehicle’s collision with the axle-wheel assembly qualified as “actual physical contact” with a “motor vehicle” or a legally recognized substitute for … We decline, however, to adopt an integral part test not present in the text of the statute and inconsistent with the relatively bright line established by the Legislature.

Dobard v. State

233 S.W.2d 435 · Texas Supreme Court · Oct 18, 1950

Supp. 371 , sustaining a somewhat similar statute of South Carolina, but that case was subsequently reversed in its pertinent part by the federal Supreme Court, which held the statute to violate the privileges and immunities … Clearly there is a point at which the reduction of the number of boats would reduce the amount of fish taken, because obviously a single boat would not normally take as many as, say, ten boats of the same type operating under

Intercontinental Group Partnership v. Kb Home Lone Star L.P.

Texas Supreme Court · Aug 28, 2009

Hobby , a federal civil-rights case, the Court elaborated: [T]o qualify as a prevailing party, a . . . plaintiff must obtain at least some relief on the merits of his claim. … P . 279 (“Upon appeal all independent grounds of recovery or of defense not conclusively established under the evidence and no element of which is submitted or requested are waived.”); cf. Wilz v.

Moore v. Moore

73 Tex. 382 · Texas Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1889

Moore, being on the witness stand and testifying in his own behalf, the plaintiff proposed to prove by him that he did voluntarily take what is commonly known as the iron clad oath, whereby he qualified himself to hold and … The language: of the act mentioned above “ clearly rests the prohibition against alienation upon the fraudulent intent with which it is made, and throws the- *391 burden of proof of such fraudulent view on the party impeaching

Davis v. Fisk Electric Co.

51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1420 · Texas Supreme Court · Sep 26, 2008

IV Standard of Review In contrast to the federal system, which employs a “clearly erroneous” standard of review, we review a trial court’s Batson ruling for abuse of discretion. … Donaldson: I have to qualify that. Prescott: I'll qualify my answer. Davis counsel: I’d like your qualifications. Donaldson: It depends on the amount. Davis counsel: I can’t see. Can you hold it up, please? 47?

State v. Harrington

10 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 31 · Texas Supreme Court · Oct 12, 1966

The State further proved by a qualified land surveyor, Ralph Andrews, that the bore-hole of the well crossed the property boundary line so that the bottom of the well was in a different tract of land than the surface location … Additional Testimony “At any time the court may permit additional evidence to be offered where it clearly appears to be necessary to the due administration of justice.

Reed v. Wylie

20 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 445 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1977

The Court clearly based the disposition of Acker v. Guinn upon this rule and concluded that the conveyance of "all oil, gas and other minerals ... that may be produced" included no interest in iron ore. … The court answered this argument in its final conclusion as follows: "In the instant case there was not a grant of all minerals without qualifying language, but rather a grant of `other minerals' as qualified by the words

In Re Pirelli Tire, L.L.C.

51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 90 · Texas Supreme Court · Nov 2, 2007

The Unadorned Language of Section 71.051(a) Controls This Case Boiled down, the Court’s holding is that the various common-law factors from Gulf Oil “clearly and overwhelmingly favor a Mexican forum for resolution of this … It merely asks whether the case “would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state” — that is, the movant need only establish the existence of another forum, not its adequacy.

Fort Worth Publishing Co. v. Hitson & Reed

80 Tex. 216 · Texas Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1890

The certificates which were by order of the investment company, limited, to be issued to five of its members to qualify them as directors of the publishing company were in the book. … It is insisted that the evidence admitted did not tend to establish that fact.

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission v. Garcia

38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 235 · Texas Supreme Court · Feb 9, 1995

The Act clearly specifies certain factual issues to be reviewed under a preponderance standard, detailing the controlling procedures. … This adjustment clearly furthers the purpose of temporary income benefits: replacing the income that is actually lost as a result of the disabling injury.

Highland Homes Ltd. v. State

57 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1315 · Texas Supreme Court · Aug 29, 2014

The Act clearly prohibits parties from making an agreement that prevents “money or property from being presumed abandoned.” TEX . PROP . CODE § 74.308. … Even had there been a surplus, the cy pres provision in this agreement was clearly inappropriate for yet another reason.

Willacy Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. Sebastian Cotton & Grain, Ltd.

555 S.W.3d 29 · Texas Supreme Court · Apr 27, 2018

If there was an agreement under section 1.111(e), it was to resolve Sebastian's motion to correct ownership brought under section 25.25(c), which asserted, "The purchase contract confirmations clearly establish that on January … Nov. 22, 2013) (holding that where the facts and circumstances are conclusively established, ownership becomes a question of law).

Powers v. First Natl. Bank of Corsicana

138 Tex. 604 · Texas Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1942

Hofstetter to qualify and limit the power of the trustee to spend the trust income for worthy objects of charity to the same extent as if she had wholly omitted the phrase, “including the support of the Christian religion … Hofstetter’s being favored by our courts, such facts cannot be used to strike down her clearly revealed intention to give her estate to four classes of public charity beneficiaries.

PPG Industries, Inc. v. JMB/Houston Centers Partners Ltd. Partnership

47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 822 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 9, 2004

HCC clearly qualified as a “consumer” under this definition. HCC still owned the building in 1983 when the Legislature amended the statutory definition to exclude business consumers with assets exceeding $25 million. … HCC did not qualify as a consumer under the amended definition.

James Construction Group, LLC and Primoris Services Corporation v. Westlake Chemical Corporation

Texas Supreme Court · May 20, 2022

Notice tantamount to written notice, which James clearly had, should be sufficient. … As with the December 28 email, the Court concludes that the January 18 email did not qualify as written notice under Section 21.3, not because it was not written, but because it was lacking in substance.

Hall v. Medical Bldg. of Houston

151 Tex. 425 · Texas Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1952

The principle as generally stated is qualified by the rule that the owner or occupant of the premises does not owe to the business invitee the duty to protect him against dangerous conditions “that are obvious, reasonably … The evidence, we believe, clearly shows that the door as constructed, maintained and used created a dangerous condition. The principal controversy is as to the question whether the danger was open and obvious.