Case law

In re Chevroletgeo

997 S.W.2d 173 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1999

For example, courts may limit discovery pending resolution of threshold issues like venue, jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and official immunity. See Tex.R. Civ. … Here, Relators failed to show or otherwise explain in their motion to bifur *183 cate that the class and merits issues are clearly separable.

Foster v. Johnson

89 Tex. 640 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1896

Powell being appointed executor of the will, who duly qualified according to law and brought suit against J. W. House for the lot and buildings thereon. … Plaintiff having clearly established a prior peaceable possession never abandoned, the defendants having failed to show any right to disturb that possession, the judgment in favor of the plaintiff should stand.”

In re Christus Santa Rosa Health System

492 S.W.3d 276 · Texas Supreme Court · May 27, 2016

“A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if ‘it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.’” Walker v. … In section 160.007(d), however, the Legislature qualified the exception with specific language: “If a medical peer review committee takes action that could result in [discipline]..; Id. § 160,‘007(d).

City of DeSoto v. White

52 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 893 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 19, 2009

Section 143.057(a) clearly requires that the letter notify the officer of the appeal limitation. It provides that the letter must inform the officer of the limitation. Id. § 143.057(a). … Section 311.034 specifically addresses waivers of sovereign immunity, an issue not implicated here. See id.

James Fredrick Miles v. Texas Central Railroad & Infrastructure, Inc. and Integrated Texas Logistics, Inc.

Texas Supreme Court · Jun 24, 2022

Texas Central does not “clearly fall within” Section 131.012’s scope. … Our well-established rules of construction forbid plucking terms out of a statute for examination in a vacuum; they favor—indeed, require—analysis of the statute as a whole and in context.

Kimbrough v. Barnett

93 Tex. 301 · Texas Supreme Court · Feb 5, 1900

into effect the following constitutional provisions: “A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish … The duties of a court, under such circumstances as surround this case, are clearly and fairly stated" in the quotation.

Texas Municipal Power Agency v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 216 · Texas Supreme Court · Dec 14, 2007

In a related appeal, however, the Third Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment claims, that the claims are not barred by sovereign immunity, and that the … The statute clearly makes transmission rates the Commission’s business, not ours. TMPA says this order effectively requires it to unbundle its services.

Pham, Con Mahn

Texas Supreme Court · Jun 19, 2015

Appellant does not contend that Rush does not qualify as an expert under Rule 702. … If we find no evidence supporting the finding, we then determine whether the contrary was established as a matter of law. Id.

Kirk v. Beard

162 Tex. 144 · Texas Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1961

Fitzgerald the basis of Upson’s claim was an oral contract alleged to have been made by him with his grandparents to the effect that if he would qualify himself educationally and otherwise and would superintend the grandparents … The law announced by the above cases is too well established to be questioned but it may not be applied to the facts of this case.

Forbes Inc. v. Granada Biosciences, Inc.

47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 162 · Texas Supreme Court · Dec 19, 2003

According to Eller, he read the article that day and telephoned Barrett, telling him that the article “contained innumerable false statements and clearly misleading and false innuendos.” … In essence, the plaintiffs contend that Forbes should have included qualifying language specifically excluding GBI and GFC whenever the article referred to “Granada.”

McCray v. Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co.

89 Tex. 168 · Texas Supreme Court · Feb 3, 1896

After reviewing many of the cases upon this question the court said: “These and many other English and American eases clearly establish the fact that it is not requisite that the plaintiff’s proof, on occasions of this kind … proved that a rail properly adjusted upon the ear, resting inside of the guards and extending beyond the guards at each end, would not probably fall, as described by the witness, except by means of the opinion of witnesses, qualified

Hone v. Hanafin

46 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 619 · Texas Supreme Court · May 1, 2003

The rule does not clearly state that such a request does not extend the time period within which to file a notice of appeal. Cf. Tex.R.App. … Based on the liberal standard established by this Court for considering untimely appeals, we hold that the court of appeals erred by imposing a requirement that Petitioners concede their appeal was untimely.

Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert

51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1086 · Texas Supreme Court · Jun 27, 2008

Clearly, the act of "laying hands" is infused in Pleasant Glade's religious belief system. … Smith, 494 U.S. at 885 , 110 S.Ct. 1595 . [10] And even under the Court's erroneous standard, it is hard to see why this case would not qualify.

Ppg Industries, Inc. v. jmb/houston Centers Partners Limited Partnership

Texas Supreme Court · Jul 9, 2004

HCC clearly qualified as a A consumer @ under this definition. HCC still owned the building in 1983 when the Legislature amended the statutory definition to exclude business consumers with assets exceeding $25 million. … HCC did not qualify as a consumer under the amended definition.

City of Fort Worth v. Zimlich

29 S.W.3d 62 · Texas Supreme Court · Nov 9, 2000

There is evidence that a less qualified candidate was promoted to chief deputy over Zimlich. … Clearly, Zimlich’s attorney did not make an admission that Donoho was irrelevant to the entire case.

Shannon v. Taylor

16 Tex. 413 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1856

Shannon, the ancestor of the defendant, (now appellant,) departed this life in 1838, testate, having received a title to the league of land, a part of which is the subject of this suit; that Jacob Shannon and William Burney qualified … The right of the plaintiff was established by the judgment of the Court in that case.

Trinity County Lumber Co. v. Denham

85 Tex. 56 · Texas Supreme Court · May 24, 1892

The court’s charge presented the issues correctly and clearly. But, should the court have allowed the jury to take the refused charge with them in their retirement tó consider of their verdict ? We think not. … It occurred as follows, according to the bill of exceptions, as qualified by the court: Defendant handed the court two special charges, numbers 1 and 2, both written on the same piece of paper.

Hearts Bluff Game Ranch, Inc. v. State

55 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1287 · Texas Supreme Court · Aug 31, 2012

The record does not clearly indicate all the uses of the parcel prior to Hearts Bluffs purchase. … Bluff cannot establish a viable takings claim.

City of Austin v. Thompson

147 Tex. 639 · Texas Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1949

Lumpkin by referring to it as a memorandum opinion and by ignoring the judgment entered on the Court’s minutes in that case, which clearly discloses the opinion of the Court that the election should have been enjoined by … In an election the right to the office is established by the result of the election and does not depend upon the issuance of the commission, which is merely a ministerial act. Conger v. Gilmer, 32 Cal. 75, 80 .

Hunt County v. Rains County

116 Tex. 277 · Texas Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1926

Mont *281 gomery, who, at the time, was the duly elected and qualified surveyor of Rains County, and are as follows (here follows description) ; that the line so established has since that time been recognized; that the lines … ‘Hooker’s *283 Mill,’ on the east branch of Sabine River, is clearly identified and located on the ground. It is the S. W. corner of Rains County, and is an object called for in the Act creating the county.