Case law

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.

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.

York v. State

55 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1013 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 29, 2012

Satisfaction of either test will suffice. 71 Ordinarily, a Chapter 47 proceeding would clearly pass both tests. … And he is not barred from suing the officials who continue to hold the trailer to establish his ownership.

Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

60 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 190 · Texas Supreme Court · Jan 6, 2017

. §§ 32.001(a) (establishing the PUC’s original jurisdiction “over the rates, operations and services of an electric utility”), and 36.001 (providing authority to “establish and regulate rates of an electric utility” and … But in 1995, when Section 36.351 was enacted, it was clearly intended to apply to integrated utilities, including their transmission and distribution operations.

County of Galveston v. Gorham

49 Tex. 279 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1878

Subject, of course, to variation by qualifying circumstances, it may be said, generally, that “he is willing, who either expressly consents or tacitly makes no opposition ”; and, also, “he who consents to a thing, or makes … How, whether the court was correct or not in determining that the facts in that case were sufficient to establish the compulsion, it was upon the opinion that they did establish it, that it was held not to have been a voluntary

Quantum Chemical Corp. v. Toennies

47 S.W.3d 473 · Texas Supreme Court · May 24, 2001

Although section 21.125(a) begins with the qualifying words "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by this chapter," nowhere else does the TCHRA provide a different causal standard for pretext cases. … But of the four circuits that have addressed the issue, only one has clearly construed the statute as this Court does.

Bentley v. Bunton

45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1172 · Texas Supreme Court · Aug 29, 2002

Amant , not the purposeful avoidance held to establish subjective doubt in Harte-Hanks. … I conclude that Bentley has not carried his burden to clearly and convincingly prove actual malice against Gates.

Alexander v. Turtur & Associates, Inc.

47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 992 · Texas Supreme Court · Aug 27, 2004

Tucker, 205 Mich.App. 547 , 517 N.W.2d 835, 837 (1994) (expert witness usually required to establish causation); Sommers v. … Clearly, Peterson’s testimony does not support the inference that, had omitted evidence been presented, there would have been a different result in the underlying trial.

Wadkins v. Watson

22 L.R.A. 779 · Texas Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1893

A usage appears to have been established in Massachusetts during its early colonial period, and before the enactment of statutes conferring the power, under which it was held to be lawful for married women, joined by their … Rice was qualified, if not overruled, in Snoddy v. Leavitt, 105 Indiana, 359.

Geoffrey Dugger v. Mary Ann Arredondo, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Joel Martinez

Texas Supreme Court · Aug 30, 2013

The plain language of section 33.003 clearly indicates that the common law unlawful acts doctrine is no longer a viable defense. … Civil Rights Project, as amicus curiae, contends that a broad unlawful acts doctrine could allow people who 17 commit serious tortious conduct against others to have civil immunity

United Concrete Pipe Corp. v. Spin-Line Co.

11 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 495 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1968

It is well settled that an acceptance must not change or qualify the terms of the offer. If it does, the offer is rejected. Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Westside Investment Corp., Tex., 428 S.W.2d 92 (May 4, 1968). … Clearly this provision was intended only to apply if Shell were willing to increase the amount payable to United and if such increase were precipitated by a variation from the provisions of the Spin-Line-Shell agreement.

Texas Department of State Health Services John Hellerstedt, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Dshs v. Crown Distributing LLC America Juice Co., LLC Custom Botanical Dispensary, LLC 1937 Apothecary, Llc

Texas Supreme Court · Jun 24, 2022

The Texas Constitution guarantees that “[n]o citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land.” … as “hemp,” and no longer qualify as “marihuana.”

McCreary v. Robinson

94 Tex. 221 · Texas Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1900

The wife of the testator was nominated executrix and qualified as such. … Busby) make such intention clearly appear. Such is human nature that the living in the family of another is calculated to breed dissension and to render the relation intolerable.

Davis v. Bond

138 Tex. 206 · Texas Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1942

Thus her own testimony as to what she said and did negatives the existence of a reservation by her of control over *213 the instrument, and we think very clearly shows an intention on her part to place the deed beyond her … Russell holds that parol proof is inadmissible when it “has the effect of limiting, qualifying or imposing a condition upon the estate conveyed.” The unambiguous language of the deed executed by Mrs.

Samuel T. Jackson v. State Office of Administrative Hearings and Shelia Bailey Taylor in Her Official Capacity as Chief Administrative Law Judge, State Office of Administrative Hearings

Texas Supreme Court · Jul 1, 2011

Jackson argues that (1) section 552.101, which establishes exceptions to disclosure, does not apply to the categories of information requested here, but rather the stricter standard established by section 552.022(a) governs … The Legislature has clearly expressed its intent that exceptions to disclosure be construed narrowly. See Tex.

Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Ellis

971 S.W.2d 402 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1998

The trial court granted summary judgment on the grounds that the Dauberts did not establish that the principle on which their experts based their opinions was generally accepted by the relevant scientific community. … This Court followed Dau-bert and held that a party must show, in addition to showing an expert witness is qualified, that the expert’s testimony is relevant and reliable. See Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 556.

Terrell v. King

118 Tex. 237 · Texas Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1929

Because the members of the 40th Legislature serving on said Committee hold their respective offices as such members of the Legislature until their successors shall be duly qualified; that none of them have resigned as members … The Legislature was clearly empowered to appoint a committee with authority to employ all outside help or counsel needed to accomplish the purposes of the proposed investigation and inquiry.

Cleveland v. Ward

116 Tex. 1 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 9, 1926

This receiver qualified, and is now acting in that capacity. September 24, 1924, John L. Cleveland and Annie H.. … It is not the validity of such a judgment which renders it immune from collateral attack; but, on the principle of estoppel, invoked in aid of a sound public policy, the parties are denied the right in a collateral action

Rust v. Rust

147 Tex. 181 · Texas Supreme Court · Nov 3, 1948

His will was probated May 26, 1942, and his executors promptly qualified and took charge of his estate. His only heirs at law were his surviving wife and daughter. His father, John Y. Rust, Sr., was living. … The third and fourth paragraphs are clearly conditional clauses of defeasance, and as such conditions subsequent. The remaining paragraphs merely detail the powers and duties of the trustees.

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Goudeau

52 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 216 · Texas Supreme Court · Dec 19, 2008

There is much argument with citation of many cases to establish the long-recognized general principle that no person may sue himself. … P. 198.2(b) ("The responding party may qualify an answer, or deny a request in part, only when good faith requires."). [42] TEX.R. CIV. P. 198.3. [43] Wheeler v.