Case law

McGalliard v. Kuhlmann

30 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 96 · Texas Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1986

. ****** The court of appeals held that the cost of repair was established at $113,088.31 as a matter of law. … The fact that McFarland was the only witness who was qualified as an “expert” is not controlling. It has long been the rule of this State that opinion testimony does not establish any material fact as a matter of law.

ETC Marketing, Ltd. v. Harris County Appraisal District

528 S.W.3d 70 · Texas Supreme Court · Apr 28, 2017

On one side of the spectrum are cases involving a clearly transitory stop. See, e.g., Champlain Realty Co. v. … The ad valorem tax targets all qualifying personal property; it pays no attention to the property’s intended destination.

City of Dallas v. Morris

120 Tex. 181 · Texas Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1931

The statute clearly implies the wife’s capacity to litigate in her own right. When sued, she is reached directly; not indirectly through the person of her husband. … The statutory requirement that her husband be joined with her in the suit, goes merely to the matter of procedure for the establishment and enforcement of her liability.

Dorenfield v. State of Texas

123 Tex. 467 · Texas Supreme Court · May 30, 1934

He thereupon promptly qualified by taking the requisite oath of office, and commission was duly issued to him, he having paid the requisite fee therefor. … board than that appointing him, the appointing power cannot arbitrarily remove him. * * * "Where the appointment or election is made for a definite term or during good behavior, and the removal is to be for cause, it is now clearly

Kaufman v. Wolf

77 Tex. 250 · Texas Supreme Court · May 9, 1890

Wynne was appointed assignee and qualified on January 31,1881, by giving bond required by the statute, with Julius Kaufman, Julius Runge, and J. S. … The establishment of any other rule would annul the statute.

Williams v. Castleman

112 Tex. 193 · Texas Supreme Court · Dec 13, 1922

his successor shall be elected and qualified. … When the court was once established, no legislation was needed to enable it .to exercise the powers given by the above provision, to divide the county into precincts.

Loftin v. Martin

32 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 401 · Texas Supreme Court · May 24, 1989

The relator must establish, under the circumstances of the case, that the facts and law permit the trial court to make but one decision. … However, this relator has clearly chosen to seek relief against the court of appeals instead.

Eades v. Drake

160 Tex. 381 · Texas Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1960

Permit me to emphasize that the contention of Judge Williams that he was elected for four years does not alter the fact that the people, speaking through the Legislature, clearly intended that he should be elected for a term … Under this provision the Legislature may establish special district courts for a limited term and these courts have all of the powers that are constitutionally possessed by permanent district courts.

City of Dallas v. VSC, LLC

54 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1319 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 1, 2011

The Court held that such a procedure "satisfies the requirement of due process of law as clearly as if the ascertainment of compensation had preceded the taking." Id. … VSC's requests for injunctive and declaratory relief certainly qualifies in that case. Likewise, in Mora v.

The Commons of Lake Houston, Ltd. v. City of Houston, Texas

Texas Supreme Court · Mar 21, 2025

Texas Takings Claims Governmental immunity protects the City against—and deprives the courts of jurisdiction over—this suit unless that immunity has been waived. City of Houston v. … The Texas takings clause—Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution— waives the City’s immunity and establishes the courts’ jurisdiction, but 8 As described further below, The Commons first filed suit in 2018

Belt v. Cetti

100 Tex. 92 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1906

Roche did in said court duly and legally qualify as such survivor. “6. Said Thos. … Williams, Judge Lipscomb so clearly distinguished the case of Thomas v. Greer from Lacy v.

Reliance National Indemnity Company, L&T, J v. and Lamar Construction, Inc. v. Advance'd Temporaries, Inc.

Texas Supreme Court · Jun 8, 2007

A Relevant to the first two issues is how one qualifies under the mechanic’s lien statute as a person who “furnishes labor.” Tex. Prop. Code § 53.021(a). … The contract clearly identifies the temporary workers as Advance’d’s employees and makes Advance’d the responsible party. Advance’d was responsible for recruiting and screening these workers.

Dwyer v. Kalteyer

68 Tex. 554 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1887

Thereupon appellee Kalteyer was appointed and qualified as administrator de bonis non of Grenet’s estate, and appellant qualified as executrix of the will of Dwyer. … the testator’s children, and do not bear upon the I question before us, the will (including its two codicils) is as ¡follows: “The State oe Texas, ) County of Bexar. j I, the undersigned, Honoré Grenet, French citizen, established

Shepherd v. San Jacinto Junior College District

6 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 175 · Texas Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1962

If the limitation be not express, then it should be clearly implied.” … Clearly the expression ‘taxes herein authorized’ negatives all other taxation for school purposes than that expressly authorized in the constitution.

in Re Reidie James Jackson, Relator

Texas Supreme Court · Nov 25, 2015

clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Wilson, 526 U.S. at 603. … established right.

Columbia Valley Healthcare System, L.P. D/B/A Valley Regional Medical Center v. Maria Zamarripa, as Guardian of the Estates of R.F.R. and R.J.R., Minors

60 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1189 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 9, 2017

(“There is no mention in the statute of . . . proximate cause, and Texas law does not impose a requirement to establish the elements that must be proved at trial at this stage in the proceedings.”); Rio Grande Reg’l Hosp. … But without factual explanations, the reports are nothing more than the ipse dixit of the experts, which we have held are clearly insufficient. The court of appeals erred in holding to the contrary.

State of Texas v. $1,760.00 in United States Currency, 37 "8" Liner MacHines

56 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 821 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 28, 2013

Barnes’s establishment allowed players to return at a later date to redeem the tickets for replays on the eight- liners. … The critical inquiry is whether non-immediate rights of replay qualify as “noncash merchandise prizes, toys, or novelties.” TEX .

Hornsey v. Bacon

20 Tex. 556 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1857

Clearly such was not the intention here. … Nor can the plaintiff claim the benefit of the exception to the general rule, established in Warnell v. Finch, 15 Tex. R. 163.

Able v. Lee

6 Tex. 427 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1851

It surely requires no argument to show that he liad the right to give such other instructions as might be proper to qualify or explain those given and to present tiie law of tiie case clearly and truly to the apprehension … The de- *216 fondant having pleaded payment, the burden of proof rested with him to establish the truth of his plea by evidence of payment. lie had no right to ¡i<k the jury to baso a finding in his favor on conjecture ;

Joe Adams & Son v. McCann Construction Company

15 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 16 · Texas Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1971

The decision in this case establishes not only bad contract law but also bad summary judgment law. … This rule is too well established to require citation of additional authorities.