Case law

Pleasant Glade Assembly of God, Reverend Lloyd A. McCutchen, Rod Linzay, Holly Linzay, Sandra Smith, Becky Bickel, and Paul Patterson v. Laura Schubert

Texas Supreme Court · Jun 27, 2008

Smith , 494 U.S. at 885 . [10] And even under the Court’s erroneous standard, it is hard to see why this case would not qualify. … Calvary Christian Church , 614 N.W.2d 590, 593 (Mich. 2000), that case is clearly inapposite.

Gilleland v. State

44 Tex. 356 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1875

It is clearly and positively established by direct testimony. … That those of appellant may have been of a conditional or qualified character, is not sufficient to show that he sought the deceased for a peaceable and lawful purpose.

Kempner v. Galveston County

76 Tex. 450 · Texas Supreme Court · Mar 11, 1890

But we think that if there was any impropriety in the arrangement, neither Burk nor his sureties are in any position to claim immunity from its consequences. … If the intention was to have the jury instructed that Burk could not be charged with the $18,413.23 unless the money was actually paid into his hands, it was clearly erroneous.

Sinker, Davis & Co. v. Comparet

62 Tex. 470 · Texas Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1884

The operation and effect of this rule in some of the states is qualified by statutory provisions, as in Maine, Iowa and Vermont. See note, supra. The doctrine stated is not, however, uniformly recognized. … The contract in writing between the plaintiffs and Comparet was one clearly embraced within the statute.

Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. Estate of Clyde L. Burt, Linda S. Wallace, and Linda S. Wallace

Texas Supreme Court · May 3, 2024

residence.” 17 Importantly, the Manual instructs that an applicant’s “statement” regarding their intent to return is dispositive unless it is “self-contradictory”, 18 a term the Manual defines clearly … Disabled beneficiaries are becoming first-time homeowners without losing their benefits. 35 More importantly—in disregard of the Act’s text, which states that “[h]ousing” counts as a qualified disability

Continental Insurance v. Pruitt

65 Tex. 125 · Texas Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1885

Qualified as above stated, the charges referred to in the tenth and eleventh assignments of error were correct, as matters of law, and applicable to the issues made by the pleadings and evidence. … .” • One of the objections made to the charge set out in the tenth assignment is, that it did not clearly inform the jury that-to entitle the plaintiff to recover it must appear that fire alone destroyed the building and

Dalton v. Allen

110 Tex. 68 · Texas Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1919

voters thereof one county commissioner, who shall hold his office for two years and until his successor shall be elected and qualified. … In establishing courts of civil appeals, the Constitution, as amended, declared that each court should consist of a chief justice andi two associate justices and made no provision that any number less than the whole should

Gerst v. Oak Cliff Savings and Loan Association

11 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 490 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1968

Section 2.13 of Article 852a clearly provides that no branch office may be established without the approval of the Commissioner. … This was clearly held in Gerst v.

Texas Windstorm Insurance Association v. Stephen Pruski

Texas Supreme Court · May 10, 2024

Pruski appealed, arguing in part that Judge Watts was not qualified to render judgment because she had not been appointed by the MDL panel. … GOV’T CODE § 311.034 (providing direction on construing statutes with respect to waiver of sovereign immunity and stating that “[s]tatutory prerequisites extent that it characterized the plaintiff’s failure to establish

Lewis v. Metropolitan Savings & Loan Ass'n

20 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 221 · Texas Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1977

What occurs, then, at the administrative hearing becomes of paramount importance in the statutory procedures established by Article 852a. … In our view, the evidence reflected in Exhibit 34 was clearly competent and relevant and the error in its exclusion required the reversal by the Court of Civil Appeals of the judgment of the trial court and the remand of

in Re Alfred Dewayne Brown

Texas Supreme Court · Dec 18, 2020

The other two eligibility grounds commit the qualifying innocence determinations exclusively to the Governor or the judiciary. … type of documents that establish eligibility for compensation and they include all the elements Section 103.001(a)(2)(C) of the statute requires.

Maxey v. Citizens National Bank of Lubbock

17 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 244 · Texas Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1974

The *725 affidavits purport to establish only that final judgments have been rendered in favor of the individual officers, shareholders, directors, employees, and agents of the bank previously made parties defendant to this … A distinction between the duties owed by a corporation and the corporate official was clearly drawn in United States Liability Insurance Company v.

Republic Insurance Co. v. Stoker

38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1011 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 7, 1995

In the present case, Republic Insurance Company breached its duty by mishandling the Stokers’ claim, and its belated discovery of fine print in the policy should not immunize the company from all liability. … [Without either disapproving, overruling, or qualifying Viles or Aranda, can your client not prevail in this case solely on the basis that there’s no evidence of damages?

City of Fort Worth v. Davis

1 Tex. L. R. 325 · Texas Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1882

be said to be clearly unconstitutional and void. … But the Constitution provides no means of ascertaining the numberof tax paying qualified voters in the city.

James v. Brown

25 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 432 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 14, 1982

—Dallas 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.), inasmuch as it extended to psychiatrists testifying in mental health proceedings a blanket immunity from all civil liability. … James' detention was effected by a valid arrest warrant signed by the probate judge, the trial court's summary judgment on the false imprisonment claim was clearly proper. Pate v.

Loper v. Andrews

9 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 431 · Texas Supreme Court · May 25, 1966

The opinion clearly rested on the assumed fact that a diagnosis of leukemia is not one about which physicians ordinarily differ. … It was further established that for the accident to have caused the vision impairment the boy must have sustained a blow at the base of the skull causing a skull fracture.

City of Dallas v. McDonald

103 S.W.2d 725 · Texas Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1937

opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in this language : “For cause of action, appellants allege, in substance, that, prior to the adoption of the present charter of the city of Dallas -(1931), each was duly appointed and qualified … Barber, Mayor, et al., 286 Ill.App. 486 , 3 N.E.(2d) 939, 942, which we think clearly states the applicable rule. After a reference to the case of Moon v.

In RE MARIA TERESA RAMIREZ MORRIS, AND TEXAS ALLIANCE FOR LIFE, INC. v. the State of Texas

Texas Supreme Court · Mar 17, 2023

The present case surely qualifies. … The core right protected by that clause is immunity from standing trial a second time.

Bennett v. Brown County Water Improvement District No. One

153 Tex. 599 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1954

The opinion states “* * * The ‘district,’ whatever its degree as a public or governmental agency (Section 59, Art. 16, Constitution), has no immunity from liability for injuries referred to in Section 17, Art. 1.” … Petitioners’ pleadings, seeking to establish liability on the grounds of a nuisance, are clearly contrary to the rule of law declared by Chief Justice Alexander in the case of Gotcher v.

Jones v. Menard

1 Tex. 771 · Texas Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1846

“The law will not presume an ouster without some proof, and though a mere trespasser cannot qualify his own wrong, and the owner may, for the sake of the remedy, elect to consider himself disseized, yet the latter is not … We believe these principles to be too well established to be questioned at this day. *(549) To apply them to the question at bar, it is manifest the judge erred in qualifying, as he did, the charge asked by the defendant’