Case law

Jensen v. Jensen

629 S.W.2d 222 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 19, 1982

Jensen were adequate and reasonable because the evidence conclusively establishes they were inadequate and unreasonable. … Jensen was fully aware of the facts surrounding the establishment of RLJ and encouraged Mr. Jensen in this endeavor. Mr.

Combs v. Texas Small Tobacco Coalition

440 S.W.3d 304 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 15, 2014

"[I]t is well-recognized that a suit seeking a declaratory judgment that a state agent is acting pursuant to an unconstitutional law is not barred by sovereign immunity.” Scott v. … Stephens, 100 Tex. 628 , 103 S.W. 481, 485 (1907) ("The courts, under the provisions relied on, can only interfere when it is made clearly to appear that an attempted classification has no reasonable basis in the nature of

Waffle House, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of Illinois

114 S.W.3d 601 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 26, 2003

In other words, Kitty Hawk’s defamatory letter was clearly linked to Pollard’s employment at Kitty Hawk. … Travelers’ insurance policy provides that Travelers’ duty to defend ends when the applicable policy limits are exhausted by qualifying payments.

Walker v. Thetford

418 S.W.2d 276 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 21, 1967

supplemental list of qualified voters for the precinct in which he resides. … The notice of this election was directed to "Resident Qualified Electors" and it provided that "None but legally qualified voters * * * shall be entitled to vote."

McAdams v. Wilson

164 S.W. 59 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 7, 1914

the person and estate, and to permit the appellee guardianship in this case, if he is correct in his interpretation of the will, would then result in two guardianships pending for the same children, which, we think, is clearly … So soon as appellee shall qualify as guardian, or at least after the proper length of time, he may distribute the estate to his wards, or compel his coexecutor to do so, in a proper proceeding.

T. A. Hill State Bank of Weimar v. Schindler

33 S.W.2d 833 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 7, 1930

That it was her duty to plead the statutes of limitations against all debts, claims, and liens, as she found them upon qualifying; 4. … Maggie Ilse, who is now the owner of all the estate of August Ilse, qualified as his community executrix on September 7, 1027.

Altgelt v. Callaghan

144 S.W. 1166 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 31, 1912

Their immunity from costs should not be used to overwhelm the adversary with unjust expenses. This is not an accusation against any party to this suit, but is the statement of a broad principle of right and justice. … It is the established rule in Texas that parties to an action, or those vitally interested in the decision of a case, shall not be permitted to charge for their attendance upon the trial, and in New York and Wisconsin it

Baskin v. Mortgage and Trust, Inc.

837 S.W.2d 743 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 13, 1992

Norman testified the fault was clearly visible in aerial photographs Wood Bros, utilized in its construction activities in the Woodgate subdivision. In Dr. … Finally, appellants contend that M & T did not qualify Spagnola as an expert and “many of the statements” in her affidavit were “conclusory.” Again, we disagree.

California Chemical Company v. Sasser

423 S.W.2d 347 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Dec 28, 1967

construed liberally in favor of debtors and that vague expressions must not be tortured into acknowledgments or promises such as would toll the statute of limitations when the language actually used and considered is not clearly … But if the acknowledgment of the existence of the indebtedness be qualified by an expressed promise to pay same conditionally, a promise different from the one so expressed will not be implied.

Bode v. Loeffler

540 S.W.2d 465 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 21, 1976

During his lifetime, Otto Raeke *467 had been a Methodist minister and had qualified for retirement benefits under church law. … Such a holding would be clearly contrary to the applicable rules of construction, which are well stated in the following language from Powers v.

Jernigan v. Scott

518 S.W.2d 278 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 27, 1974

The record does not establish, as a matter of law, that Bessie and Neal were divorced prior to Neal’s death. … This provision clearly contemplates a relinquishment of claims by each party against the separate estate of the other.

Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Gill

173 S.W.3d 878 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Sep 8, 2005

Gill’s position is that (1) by failing to timely dispute compensability, Zurich has waived its ability to contest the occurrence of this injury, and (2) she established that an injury occurred as a matter of law. … Therefore, to be an “injury,” Gill’s condition must qualify as damage or harm to the physical structure of the body *886 and a disease or infection naturally resulting from the damage or harm. 42 The question of whether an

Wilson v. Hunt

270 S.W. 263 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 11, 1925

The cause having been tried by the court without a jury it will be presumed under a well-established rule that the court disregarded the improper testimony, and considered only that which was properly in evidence. … It is true the witness was permitted to speculate and conjecture at large, and much of his testimony was clearly inadmissible, but we have concluded that the trial court was able to and it is presumed he did separate the

Morris v. Texas Elks Crippled Children's Hospital, Inc.

525 S.W.2d 874 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 4, 1975

Denny qualified, as Executor. On February 9,1961, W. … It may also be clearly determined where the extraneous proof establishes an intent or lack of intent to make a contract. Magids v. American Title Insurance Company, 473 S.W.2d 460 (Tex.1971); Atkinson v.

Drane v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.

4 S.W.2d 241 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 8, 1928

A number of the bills of exception were qualified by the trial court in such a way as to clearly show no error. … The large majority of the bills of exception relate to the admission or exclusion of evidence which was offered for the purpose of establishing the amount of damage,-if any, and with reference to whether appellants were entitled

Gallegos v. Clegg

417 S.W.2d 347 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 22, 1967

Such findings, which established liability against the defendant, are not questioned on this appeal. Mrs. … In this case the liability of the defendant was established by the jury findings as to all the plaintiffs except Nick Lamas individually.

City of Cross Plains v. Radford

73 S.W.2d 1093 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 1, 1934

The record does not clearly show that none were made upon the sewer system. The improvements were constructed in compliance with the contract. The city of Cross Plains brought this suit against J. M. … The defendants, by their several cross-actions, established that they were the owners and holders in due course of all said bonds (each holding several parts of the entire issue), acquired before any maturities thereof were

Johnnie C. Ivy Plumbing Co. v. Keyser

601 S.W.2d 158 · Court of Appeals of Texas · May 29, 1980

Our Supreme Court has clearly stated that in a bill of review proceeding the trial of issues may be had in one hearing or in several hearings at the discretion of the trial judge. … The only part of this record that could possibly qualify as summary judgment proof is this Statement of Facts.

International Security Life Insurance Co. v. Melancon

463 S.W.2d 762 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 4, 1971

Her husband died on March 25, 1966 and our record shows that she was qualified as Independent Executrix of her husband’s estate. … The licensing statute under consideration required Biggar to establish his trustworthiness as a prerequisite to his being licensed. He swore to such fact in his own statement, and it was corroborated by the defendant.

Bullock v. State

982 S.W.2d 579 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 19, 1998

I would hold that unreliability is the foundation for the whole line of cases establishing that statements of co-defendants are inadmissible as to those portions inculpating a defendant. … However, a statement against the declarant’s penal interest is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. TexR.CRIM. Evid. 803(24).