Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filterstex

8,088 results

1.59s

  • Webster v. Texas & Pacific Motor Transport Co.

    140 Tex. 131 · Texas Supreme Court · Nov 11, 1942

    J. 62; State v. Union Light, Heat & Power Co., 47 N. D. 402 , 182 N. W. 539 ; *135 McNolty v. Board of School Directors, 102 Wis. 261 , 78 N. W. 439 ; People v. Whitridge, 144 App. Dis. 486, 129 N. Y. … S. 295; City of Floydada v. Gillam (Tex. Civ. App.), 111 S. W. (2d) 761 ; King v. Guerra (Tex. Civ. App.), 1 S. W. (2d) 373 ; Schwanbeck v. People ex rel.

    Cited 66 timesPublished
  • Olivier v. Snowden

    11 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 354 · Texas Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1968

    The case of Lampe v. … In the case of Scalise v. F. M.

    Cited 22 timesPublished
  • League & Lufkin v. Davis

    53 Tex. 9 · Texas Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1880

    (Brown on Stats. of Frauds, sec. 508, and refs.; 1 Dan. Ch. Pr., 4th Am. ed., pp. 656, 657; Burke v. Haley, 2 Gill., (Ill.,) 614; Gillespie v. Battle, 15 Ala., 276 ; Cozine v. Graham, 2 Paige, 181 ; Crutchfield v.

    Cited 15 timesPublished
  • Marfa Independent School District v. Wood

    135 Tex. 223 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1940

    Although it may be true that the County Board of Trustees did not follow each of the particular steps provided for by said Article 2742f, nevertheless said article did confer upon the Board power to add this territory to … See State Line Consolidated School District No. 6 v. Farwell Independent School District, 48 S. W. (2d) 616 ; Pyote Independent School District v. Dyer, 34 S. W. (2d) 578 .

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • City of Fort Worth v. Howerton

    149 Tex. 614 · Texas Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1951

    Dendy v. Wilson, 142 Texas 460, 468 , 179 S. W. 2d 269, 273 , 151 A.L.R. 1217 ; Cameron v. Connally, 117 Texas 159, 165 , 299 S. W. 221, 223 ; Crabb v. Celeste Independent School District, 105 Texas 194, 203 , 146 S. … W. 528, 532 ; Love v. City of Dallas, 120 Texas 351, 365, 366 , 40 S. W. 2d 20, 26 .

    Cited 26 timesPublished
  • Dallas Central Appraisal District v. Seven Investment Co.

    835 S.W.2d 75 · Texas Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1992

    To the extent that it conflicts with this opinion, we disapprove of May v. Appraisal Review Board of Tarrant Appraisal Dist., 794 S.W.2d 906 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1990, writ denied). … In reaching this conclusion, the court of appeals adopted the reasoning of May v. Appraisal Review Board of Tarrant Appraisal Dist., 794 S.W.2d 906 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1990, writ denied).

    Cited 193 timesPublished
  • Gracey v. West

    11 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 160 · Texas Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1968

    See also French v. Brown, Tex.Sup., not officially reported, Tex.Sup.Ct. Journal, Vol. 11, p. 132, December 16,1967. … Ass’n v. Wermske, 162 Tex. 540 , 349 S.W.2d 90 (1961) and cases^therein cited. Respondent cites the cases of Armstrong v. Nixon, 16 Tex. 611 (1895); Shafer v.

    Cited 120 timesPublished
  • Gator, Wilfred Clarence

    Texas Supreme Court · Mar 11, 2015

    ' ` 'ISSUE RAISED IN APPLIGATION go the in§tant writ, the applicant contend the rakas Board%of Pardon and Patole statutory criteria Board.it~making its aecision' 5 L wm ¢~,z»' v,, j ' irr. ' nprz,rcnn!" … ::l , fha statute calls on the Board members to evaluate the offenders*ypotential for rehabilitation and_ebether” his rileaee could emdager the *rnblic!¢ see, V¢r.c.A. éov't coa`e§'.'s soa. 14,9.20‘§`)._.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Texas Employers' Insurance v. Lemons

    125 Tex. 373 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1935

    We quote the following from that statute: “If the final order of the board is against the association, then the association and not the employer shall bring suit to. set aside said final ruling and decision of the board, … Federal Surety Co. v. Smith (Com. App.), 41 S. W. (2d) 210 ; Houtchens v. State (Com. App.), 63 S. W. (2d) 1011 ; City of Waco v. Diamond (Com. App.), 65 S. W. (2d) 272 .

    Cited 41 timesPublished
  • Farmers' Seed & Gin Co. v. Brooks

    125 Tex. 234 · Texas Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1935

    W. (2d) 960 ; Brown v. Cox, 53 S. W. (2d) 848 ; McCormick v. West Texas Lumber Co., 55 S. W. (2d) 191 ; Thomason v. Haskell Nat. Bank, 56 S. W. (2d) 242 ; A. Harris & Co. v. Cook, et ux., 62 S. W. (2d) 205 ; Reagan Co. … Purchasing Co. et al v. State, 65 S. W. (2d) 353 . In Browne v. Heid Bros., ( 12 S.

    Cited 121 timesPublished
  • Transport Insurance Co. v. Faircloth

    898 S.W.2d 269 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1995

    Currency v. State, 730 S.W.2d 659, 662 (Tex.1987). Circumstantial evidence may be used to establish any material fact, but it must constitute more than mere suspicion. Browning-Ferris, Inc. v. … Having applied the principles of $56,700 and Browning-Ferris to the record in this ease, we conclude that she did not as a matter of law.

    Cited 340 timesPublished
  • Flores v. Fourth Court of Appeals

    32 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 497 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1989

    McKinney v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 772 S.W.2d 72 (Tex.1989); Turbodyne Corp. v. Heard, 720 S.W.2d 802, 804 (Tex.1986); Giffin v. Smith, 688 S.W.2d 112, 114 (Tex.1985). … Based upon the theory that in State v.

    Modified on other grounds by National Tank Co. v. Brotherton, 851 S.W.2d 193 (1993)Cited 164 timesPublished
  • Rio Bravo Oil Co. v. Weed

    121 Tex. 427 · Texas Supreme Court · May 16, 1932

    Co. v. Stigeler, 61 N. Y., 348 ; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Ayres, 50 N. J. L., 660, 14 Atl., 901 , Boney v. Cornwell, 117 S. C., 426, 109 S. E., 271 ; Henry v. Board of Trustees, 207 Ky., 846 , 270 S. W., 476 . … Evidently Judge Brown declined to apply the presumption because of the recited fact that the grantor at the time of the conveyance owned land on both sides of the railroad right of way.

    Cited 108 timesPublished
  • City of Taylor v. Hodges

    143 Tex. 441 · Texas Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1945

    Lamar Township v. Lamar, 261 Mo. 171 , 169 S. W. 12 , Am. Cas. 1916D, 740; Aebli v. Board of Education of City and County of San Francisco, 62 Cal. App. (2d) 706, 145 Pac. (2d) 601 ; City v. … W. (2d) 887 ; United States v. Bentley, 107 Fed. (2d) 382; United States v. City of Philadelphia, 50 Fed. Supp. (2d) 170; School District No. 49, Logan County v.

    Overruled on other grounds by Lubbock County v. Trammel's Bail Bonds, 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 873 (2002)Cited 20 timesPublished
  • Aransas Pass Harbor Co. v. Manning

    94 Tex. 558 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1901

    Humphreys v. McKessock, 140 U. S., 304 ; Sellers v. Greer, 172 Ill., 549 ; Parker v. Hotel Co. (Tenn.), 34 S. W. Rep., 209 ; Baldwin v. Canfield, 26 Minn., 43 ; Wheelock v. Moulton, 15 Vt., 519 . … The text is supported by the following cases: Jordan v. Collins, 107 Ala., 572 ; Moore, etc., Co. v. Towers, etc., Co., 87 Ala., 206 ; Swift v. Smith, 65 Md., 428 . See also Railway v. Railway, 163 U.

    Cited 56 timesPublished
  • Edwards v. Morton

    92 Tex. 152 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1898

    We held in Railway v. … Russell v. Farquhar, 55 Texas, 355 .

    Cited 76 timesPublished
  • Thornburgh, Robert Jr.

    Texas Supreme Court · May 21, 2015

    z 30-/5: ILE COPY ELECTRONIC RECORD C0A# 11-12-00328-CR OFFENSE: 22.011 Robert Thornburgh, Jr. v. … STYLE: The State of Texas COUNTY: Brown COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 35th District Court DATE: 2/5A5 Publish: NO TCCASE#:

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • State v. Cash Auto Sales, Inc. F/K/A/ Larry Lake D/B/A Cash Auto Sales and VIP Finance of Texas, Inc. F/K/A Travis Lake D/B/A VIP Finance

    Texas Supreme Court · Jun 8, 2018

    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-00198-CV THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant V. … /s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Collora v. Navarro

    22 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 120 · Texas Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1978

    On the other hand, as we stated in Gevinson v. … Humphreys v. Humphreys, supra, at 178 ; Consolidated Underwriters v.

    Cited 330 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.