Case law

Texas Department of Human Services v. Oliver Okoli

57 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1214 · Texas Supreme Court · Aug 22, 2014

Gov’t Code § 554.0035 (“Sovereign immunity is waived and abolished to the extent of liability for the relief allowed under this chapter for a violation of this chapter.”). … We held that this conclusively established that the employee could not have formed a good-faith belief that his supervisor was an appropriate law-enforcement authority.

Dallas Merchant's & Concessionaire's Ass'n v. City of Dallas

852 S.W.2d 489 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1993

None of the SUPs filed by any Establishment within the areas zoned D-l by Ordinance 19694 had been granted. 15. … The criteria adopted by the Dallas City Council make it virtually impossible for any existing Establishment to qualify for a SUP. 16.

Hutchins v. Bacon

46 Tex. 408 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1877

If, in finding that defendants should hold their improvements, it was not intended that they should hold also the land improved, still the holding of these improvements is a condition qualifying the verdict for plaintiff' … Counsel for appellees say that the evidence clearly established that defendants acquired their title, and took possession of the land, with *413 knowledge of the title held by plaintiff.

State v. Oakley

163 Tex. 463 · Texas Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1962

At this point counsel for respondents took the witness on voir dire and established that he did not “participate personally in the sale”. … The court overruled the objection of counsel for respondents, whereupon counsel for respondents asked, “May it clearly be understood that I have a running bill of exceptions on all of these sales that he goes into * * * on

Oliphint v. Christy

157 Tex. 1 · Texas Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1957

Christy offered conclusive proof that ten of the electors who voted for the office of mayor were not legally qualified as electors. After establishing the illegality of the votes cast by such electors, Mr. … Clearly, the Court, when it referred to the right of a voter to refuse to reveal for whom he voted was speaking of the right of a legal voter.

Bond v. Otis Elevator Company

388 S.W.2d 681 · Texas Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1965

The Court of Civil Appeals is no doubt correct, especially if negligence is not established as a matter of law. … This case is clearly within the exception.

in Re Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas Matthew Dade Phelan, in His Official Capacity as the Speaker of the House of Representatives And the State of Texas

Texas Supreme Court · Aug 17, 2021

Relators contend the courts lack jurisdiction over this dispute under political-question principles, because of sovereign immunity, and under other theories. … The district court very clearly abused its discretion by issuing the TRO. The defendants have no adequate appellate remedy.

Carter v. Tomlinson

149 Tex. 7 · Texas Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1950

Waples, 108 Tex. 167 , 188 S.W. 1037 , and disregarding the settled law of this State as so clearly announced in that decision. Gilmore v. … The resolution seems clearly to be unreasonable in view of the facts of this case and as applied to respondents of Class 5.

Hejl v. Wirth

161 Tex. 609 · Texas Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1961

It will be noted that while the court stated it to be a canon of American jurisprudence that the stream is the boundary of a tract of land when a line begins and ends in or on a stream or its bank, the cannon was qualified … It may be rebutted by words which clearly indicate an intention to restrict the grant to points other than the thread of a stream. 8 American Jurisprudence 762, Boundaries, section 23.

In Re Demaree Reed

Texas Supreme Court · Jun 19, 2026

As explained below, none of the statutes cited by the parties or the trial court clearly confer authority on the Board to determine whether an entity qualifies as a common carrier by railroad under FELA. … The statute authorizing the Board to issue declaratory orders does not clearly establish the necessary jurisdiction.

Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Knott

47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 174 · Texas Supreme Court · Dec 19, 2003

The evidence conclusively establishes that Knott could perform some of the duties of his occupation. … However, you would have qualified for the treatment of injury under the provision of your policies in the amount of # 1250.00.

Wells v. Petree

39 Tex. 419 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1873

This will was probated at the Hovembeiz term,., 1848, *427 The executors named accepted the trust and qualified ac- ■ cording to law. … establishes "the fact that, with the full knowledge of her rights, she elected to take under the will, by which she and all persons claiming under her must be bound.

Stewart v. Luhning Et Ux.

134 Tex. 23 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1939

in the present case as a whole as to eliminate therefrom the factual element and conclusively establish that he had not been claiming the land adversely for ten years at the time suit was filed against him for its recovery … Cain, supra, the evidence clearly shows that the possession of the limitation claimant (Cain) was not adverse for the requisite period of ten years. The suit was filed August 6, 1887.

Houston Life Insurance v. Dabbs

132 Tex. 566 · Texas Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1939

The foregoing pleadings of the parties establish so far as the present record is concerned the facts embraced in subdivisions (1) and (2) set out above. … Clearly the penal statutes relating to insurance organizations other than local mutual aid associations, are without application. See also International Travelers’ Association v. Bettie (wr. ref.) 52 S. W. (2d) 1059 .

Kelley v. Bluff Creek Oil Company

158 Tex. 180 · Texas Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1958

If the legislative intent had been thus drastically to qualify its affirmative provision, it would probably have so stated in much clearer fashion than here used. … The phrase in question would then read “to establish and enforce or foreclose” instead of “to establish, enforce or foreclose.”

State Board of Insurance v. Betts

158 Tex. 624 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1958

I maintain that the Legislature has clearly defined the duties and responsibilities of the Board of Insurance and the Commissioner. … The duty and responsibility under the present law clearly rests with the Board and the Commissioner and not the court.

Baker Hughes, Inc. v. KECO R. & D., INC.

12 S.W.3d 1 · Texas Supreme Court · Jan 6, 2000

may have relied or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed; (2) whether prospective or retroactive application of the particular rule will further or retard its operation through … Baker Hughes relied on the affidavit of an expert on pollution analyzers who stated that the information in question was widely known in the industry and therefore could not qualify for trade secret protection.

in Re Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, Llc

Texas Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2015

At the same time, we bear in mind that the rules are given a liberal construction in order to obtain “a just, fair, equitable and impartial adjudication of the rights of litigants under established principles of substantive … We note that, had the children at issue been adults when suit was filed, the Texas-resident exception clearly would not have applied.

San Antonio Retail Grocers, Inc. v. Lafferty

156 Tex. 574 · Texas Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1957

Section 8 requires defendants and witnesses to testify in injunction proceedings and grants to such defendants and witnesses immunity from criminal prosecution. … The precise evil at which the Act is directed does not clearly appear from its terms.

Beer v. Landman

88 Tex. 450 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1895

For there can be no doubt that the indorsement and delivery of the negotiable notes to appellants, as security, vested in them the legal title thereto, and a qualified interest therein. … And under such circumstances, the maxim, ‘ in pari delicto, potior est conditio possidentis,’ clearly applies, and is decisive of the case.” In the case of King v.