Case law

Mayfield v. Gleichert

484 S.W.2d 619 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 31, 1972

Thus, the facts clearly support the trial court’s implied conclusion that Dr. … or a want of good faith in order to establish a cause of action.

Ward v. Fairway Operating Co.

358 S.W.2d 143 · Court of Appeals of Texas · May 17, 1962

There the location of the principal office was established as a fact on the trial of the plea of privilege. This fact was held to control venue. … Designation of a “registered” office, in our opinion did not conclusively establish that fact.

Hays v. State

342 S.W.2d 167 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 25, 1960

Hutcheson qualified as a value-witness or gave any opinion of the value of the land being condemned. … The rights of appellants are subservient to the rights of the State, and they have no right to remove dirt from nor add dirt to the land over the objection of the easement owner, unless such objection clearly appears to be

City of Garland v. Texas Power & Light Co.

295 S.W.2d 925 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 26, 1956

St., reading in part that “no irrevocable or uncontrollable grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be made”; and Art. 1, § 26, that “Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free government, and … The only right thus granted, in our opinion, was that of using City streets, alleys and public places; the clauses above emphasized merely relating back to and qualifying aforesaid provision relating to appellant’s streets

Kollenborn v. Kollenborn

273 S.W.2d 660 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 26, 1954

and clearly established grounds for appellant. … By this tenth point of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in excluding testimony of appellee on the question of her mental, attitude toward appellant when she left Dallas. ' The trial court qualified appellant

Taylor Bros. Jewelry Co. v. Kelley

189 S.W. 340 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 26, 1916

It cannot be held that the statements made to the witness by a person not a party to the case, not in the presence of the plaintiff, and prior to any suit or controversy over the title to the machine, tends in any way to establish … This latter witness clearly revealed by his answers to questions that he did not have sufficient knowledge of the condition of the car to make his-opinion of much value.

McBride v. McBride

256 S.W.2d 250 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 4, 1953

Appellee stresses the voluntary nature of the agreement as making it immune from the statutory bar of permanent alimony. There are at least two answers to this argument. … Cones, 215 Ind. 355 , 19 N.E.2d 850 , 852 in speaking of a judgment by confession the court said: "A judgment by confession has all the qualifies, incidents, and attributes of other judgments, but it cannot be valid unless

Wills Point Mercantile Co. v. Southern Rock Island Plow Co.

31 Tex. Civ. App. 94 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Dec 20, 1902

Eason, of Tyler, receiver, who did at once duly qualify as such. After such qualification as receiver by the said Geo. W. … That the court appointing the receiver had jurisdiction to appoint a receiver is clearly decided in Bonner v. Hearne, 75 Texas, 242 .

Jordan v. Westbrook

443 S.W.2d 616 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 2, 1969

indicated an intent to vote for both the candidate individually marked and the candidate for the same office in the marked party column, and therefore his vote cannot be counted for either; because the voter’s intent is clearly … In the absence of a statement of facts, we cannot determine how many votes, if any, were not counted for contestant which should have been counted for him, and the record before us does not establish that the contestant received

R---K---M v. State

535 S.W.2d 676 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 25, 1976

The thrust of appellant's contention is that in a proceeding which seeks to deprive a defendant of his liberty, the defendant is guaranteed all of the privileges and immunities he would have if it were a criminal proceeding … It is seen that the thrust of appellant's complaint pertains to Sub-sections 4 and 6. [2] The rule is well established in this State that an appellate court will not disturb the findings of the trier of the facts on conflicting

Royalty v. Nicholson

411 S.W.2d 565 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 19, 1967

Williams, 101 Tex. 395 , 108 S.W. 153 (1908), has clearly distinguished between general elections and special elections which are provided for by the Special Laws of this State. … The intention to repeal special Acts embodying conflicting provisions must be clearly evidenced."

Nail v. Nail

477 S.W.2d 395 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 11, 1972

It has long been established in Texas that an individual’s merchandising business can have a good will and that this item of good will is property, even though it is an intangible asset. … Nail after the divorce, was clearly awarded to Mrs.

Texas Department of Mental Health & Mental Retardation v. Texas State Employees Union

708 S.W.2d 498 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 19, 1986

Careful reading of Talent, supra, should clearly instruct and convince us that the Court meant that "public officials" referred to were law enforcement officials. … Clearly, state agencies do not, and should not, have such authority.

Ortiz v. Thompson

604 S.W.2d 443 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 31, 1980

The evidence did not establish that any of the seventeen persons referred to in finding of fact number 5, were prevented or dissuaded from voting because of the error. * * * “8. … We recognize that in Allen the Supreme Court did not expressly state that the term “district court” referred only to a Federal district court, but that limitation can be clearly inferred from the opinion as a whole.

In re Liberty Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co.

557 S.W.3d 851 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 16, 2018

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 or if it clearly fails to analyze the law correctly or apply the law … The relator must establish that the trial court could reasonably have reached only one decision. Id.

Wood v. Paulus

524 S.W.2d 749 · Court of Appeals of Texas · May 15, 1975

Appellants contend that Mary qualifies under the will of Annie. Appellees contend that, as a matter of law, Mary is not qualified to take under Annie’s will for the following reasons: 1. … These documents are clearly not admissible under articles 3726a nor are these documents admissible under articles 3731a, supra.

Turner v. Sawyer

271 S.W.2d 119 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 4, 1954

under the statute was vested in the community survivor who failed to so qualify. … By applying the established rule that a description is certain which can be made certain to Mrs. Turner’s deed to Sawyer, it is clearly established what land was conveyed to Sawyer.

Hill v. Mays

278 S.W. 919 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 18, 1925

Cain, supra, it is held: “Our present statute seems to clearly enough define what ife meant by ‘residence,’ that is, actual physical living in a place, thus furnishing a test which can be practically applied by election officers … held: “ ‘Residence’ as used in the Constitution requiring a voter to have a residence in a district ten days next preceding the election, did not restrict the term to its ordinary meaning, which is the place where a man establishes

Bryan v. Bryan

477 S.W.2d 705 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 22, 1972

The will was admitted to probate and Louis Bryan was duly qualified as Independent Executor of the Estate. … In order to determine the power of the probate court to control a duly qualified Independent Executor, we look to the now established rule requiring that before a probate court has any control over an independent executor

Fort Worth & D. S. P. Ry. Co. v. Judd

4 S.W.2d 1032 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 29, 1928

In proving the value of the land, it is not necessary that a witness shall be a real estate broker or a dealer in lands or otherwise qualify as an expert. … In order to constitute a dedication of private property to a public use, it must clearly appear that the owner intended to absolutely and irrevocably set apart the land for public use. Summitt Place v. Terrell (Tex.