Case law

Warren v. State

29 Tex. 369 · Texas Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1867

But whatever may have been said at the time, not qualifying or explaining the act of delivery, is to be rejected. … The accused was not in the custody of an officer; he was, however, in custody, and the testimony very clearly shows that confession cannot be regarded as having been made free from restraint. *375 The evidence in this statement

Anthony, John Dennis Clayton

Texas Supreme Court · Jul 9, 2015

Clearly, this request was broad enough to require the inclusion of one granted Motion. … Appellant respectfully contends that neither Trial Counsel nor the Honorable Judge from Bailey County is qualified as such an expert.

Thompson v. Branch's Administrators

35 Tex. 21 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1872

Durdin died in 1867, and the appellant was duly appointed and qualified as administrator on his estate ; and at that time the .appellees held a moneyed demand against the estate of said Durdin, which they attempted to collect … This statute was most ably reviewed, audits binding force most clearly enunciated, in the case of Danzey v. Swinney, 7 Texas, 626 , and in Millican v. Millican, 15 Texas, 460 .

Taylor v. Williams

101 Tex. 388 · Texas Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1908

Williams qualified and has since acted as the executor of his will, freed from the control of the Probate Court. Smith died in 1897 and there has been no administration on his estate. … He can not go into the Probate Court to establish and enforce his lien.

Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hallman

48 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 474 · Texas Supreme Court · Mar 11, 2005

The trial court held that the act was unconstitutional but found that sovereign immunity barred the farm workers’ request for attorney’s fees. Id. … The court of appeals held that the case was moot and that attorney’s fees were barred by sovereign immunity. Id. at 150-151 . We disagreed, holding: Clearly, a controversy exists between the farm workers and TEC.

Huntsville Independent School District v. McAdams

148 Tex. 120 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1949

This arises from an application of the familiar “four-comers” rule. *125 The legislative intent in enacting Art. 2786a is clearly revealed by the emergency clause of the Act, Sec. 7 of Chap. 103, Acts 1933, 43rd Leg., p. … true legislative intent in the unanimous passage of Art. 2786a is quite plain when we consider that a fundamental policy adopted with the founding of this state and consistently and continuously served ever since is the establishment

First Bank v. Brumitt

60 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 932 · Texas Supreme Court · May 12, 2017

Well-established principles govern our analysis of these issues. … Fourth, and finally, we conclude that even the evidence regarding the alleged oral agreement does not “clearly and fully” establish an intent to make Brumitt a third-party beneficiary. See id.

Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation

Texas Supreme Court · Jun 29, 2015

Sovereign Immunity Sovereign immunity implicates a trial court’s jurisdiction, and, when it applies, precludes suit against a governmental entity. Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. … Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922, 938 (Tex. 1998) (stating that an ordinance “will violate substantive due process only if it is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable”) (emphasis in original); Garcia, 893 S.W.2d at 525 (determining

Kettler v. Atkinson

383 S.W.2d 557 · Texas Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1964

The Salvation Army and the State further contend that the Ranch-Trust created a charitable trust, and, that such trust is immune from the rule against perpetuities. … The will is unambiguous; it created and established two separate trusts, a general trust and a separate trust for the ranch.

Angela Horton and Kevin Houser v. the Kansas City Southern Railway Company

Texas Supreme Court · Jun 30, 2023

question on which Congress must speak clearly if it wishes to displace core state power. … If Congress “had intended to grant the power to establish rates, it would have said so in unmistakable terms.” Id. at 509.

Goldman v. Blum

2 Tex. L. R. 25 · Texas Supreme Court · May 15, 1883

as the one in question, even of paper *36 clearly negotiable, was not absolutely void, btit gave the transferee a claim upon the note or bill in the nature of a lien. … This too, was really a suit to establish a rejected claim against the estate of a deceased person, and was also in effect a bill in equity, for the foreclosure of a lien on real estate secured by a deed of trust, which deed

R. K. Chatham & Co. v. Jones

69 Tex. 744 · Texas Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1888

This proposition may be considered to be sound when the contract has been established, or when its terms are not disputed, but here the issue was whether the defendant executed the written contract, he having impeached it … of this contract, such expenditures as were rendered necessary thereby, or such as a man of ordinary prudence would have incurred under like circumstances; and that section 20 of the charge of the court should have been qualified

Barnes v. Whittington

31 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 486 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1988

The party claiming the privilege bears the burden of producing evidence to support such an exception by showing that the documents in question qualify for the privilege as a matter of law. Id. … In the absence of any additional evidence to support the claimed privilege, this court must review the documents themselves to determine if they clearly support the privilege as a matter of law.

Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation

Texas Supreme Court · Jun 26, 2015

Sovereign Immunity Sovereign immunity implicates a trial court’s jurisdiction, and, when it applies, precludes suit against a governmental entity. Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. … Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922, 938 (Tex. 1998) (stating that an ordinance “will violate substantive due process only if it is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable”) (emphasis in original); Garcia, 893 S.W.2d at 525 (determining

Houchins v. Plainos

130 Tex. 413 · Texas Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1937

These authorities could be multiplied several fold, but we think they are sufficient to establish the rule of law we have announced. … A reading of such statutes clearly negatives such a conclusion.

Twyman v. Twyman

36 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 827 · Texas Supreme Court · May 5, 1993

The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities. … Only the most extremely egregious conduct would seem to qualify.

In RE CHEFS' PRODUCE OF HOUSTON, INC., AND MARIO ALBERTO RANGEL v. the State of Texas

Texas Supreme Court · Apr 21, 2023

The counteraffidavit and CV collectively establish Dr. Sanchez’s qualifications. He has practiced anesthesiology and pain management for over thirty years. … As a result, the trial court clearly abused its discretion in striking the affidavit and Dr. Sanchez’s testimony. 3 B.

Dancer v. City of Houston

8 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 123 · Texas Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1964

The majority stated that: “The doctrine of immunity in favor of municipal corporations is grounded in public policy. Mr. … Both activities arc clearly proprietary in nature. In the present case it can be said that the City was exercising both proprietary and governmental functions at the time Dancer was injured.

Lasater v. Lopez

110 Tex. 179 · Texas Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1919

By the Acts of April 12 and May 26, 1899, which were substantially identical, this power was qualified. … This authority, where it was necessary for the county to use its credit for the purpose, was but a part of the power reposed in those courts to lay out and establish the roads, and proceeded, as well, from their duty to establish

Office of Attorney General of Texas v. Burton

55 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 850 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 8, 2012

Burton’s disability also qualified his son to receive $481 a month in social security benefits. … No one at the hearing, however, produced any social security documentation establishing the amount of benefits paid to the child.