Case law

Sparkman v. Presley Olds-Cadillac, Inc.

616 S.W.2d 264 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 25, 1981

Difference in Market Value The evidence in this case conclusively establishes that plaintiff paid $5,353.25 for the car when she purchased it in August, 1976. … That is, the total price paid by plaintiff for repairs clearly included items unrelated to any breach of warranty or misrepresentation by defendants.

Montgomery v. Burch

11 S.W.2d 545 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 21, 1928

The appellant urges error in that the trial court’s judgment is not based on evidence to establish a contract, express or implied, to pay Burch a salary. … that rule as follows: “An exception to the general rule is recognized where the difference in extent or importance of the services actually rendered by the various partners was clearly not contemplated by them when they

Marx & Blum v. Luling Co-Operative Ass'n

17 Tex. Civ. App. 408 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Dec 2, 1897

of exceptions taken by plaintiffs to the answer, but it will be more convenient to examine tine merits of the defenses presented under -the exact facts developed by the evidence, since it is obvious that if those facts establish … That can not be qualified or varied from its natural import, but must speak for itself.

Amberson v. State

552 S.W.3d 321 · Court of Appeals of Texas · May 3, 2018

Amberson further argues that Hernandez was not qualified as an expert, and therefore, he could not rely on the learned treatise exception. … Texas Rule of Evidence 701, which provides, "If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness's perception; and (b) helpful to clearly

Gregory v. City of Garland

333 S.W.2d 869 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Dec 18, 1959

the obstruction in its sewer line after notice to it of such obstruction was not negligence. (3) * * * answer of the jury to Special Issue No. 6 was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence so as to be clearly … The City of Garland apparently chose not to plead the city's immunity in the trial court, nor does it raise the issue on this appeal by counterpoint of otherwise.

In re Estate of Davis

870 S.W.2d 320 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 20, 1994

If we were to strictly apply the statutory definition of persons interested in the estate, appellant would clearly have standing to maintain the will contest. … However, further restrictions have been placed on who qualifies as an interested person for the purpose of maintaining a will contest.

Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc. v. Latham

593 S.W.2d 334 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 14, 1979

Clearly, that is the rule in cases involving media defendants. … In that case, the Court was concerned with the issue of whether a qualified privilege was lost because it was made with malice.

Smith v. Humphreyville

47 Tex. Civ. App. 140 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 26, 1907

It is a well settled exception to the general rule, that the owner can not claim immunity from liability from the consequences of the acts of, his independent contractor, on that ground, if the work to be done is intrinsically … We are inclined to think that in such case it was the duty of the court to determine the legal effect of the contract thus established.

Hart v. Wright

16 S.W.3d 872 · Court of Appeals of Texas · May 18, 2000

While not explaining the specific standard of care, the expert clearly states that the standard was breached. In Palacios v. … Thus, the court reasoned there was no way to determine whether the plaintiff's expert was qualified. See id. at 732 .

Cunningham v. Haroona

382 S.W.3d 492 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 23, 2012

Lass-well that, based upon the medical records, Pat was clearly malnourished when she was admitted to the hospital and that her malnutrition continued and worsened. … Naar-den was not qualified to testify about the pulmonologist standard of care applicable to Dr. Haroona. Consequently, Dr. Naar-den provided no expert testimony regarding Dr.

Brister v. Lasiter

444 S.W.2d 331 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 30, 1969

intersection before he saw the car on the right where he could have seen the car lights 100 feet before entering it; and as said in the Son-nier case: “The facts in the instant case are unusual in that the truck driver clearly … Opinion evidence does not establish any material fact as a matter of law. It is but evidentiary, and is not binding upon the tryer of facts.

Harrington v. Cobb

185 S.W.2d 133 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Dec 22, 1944

As heretofore shown, appellants simply owned, equipped with drivers, ready for service, certain motor vehicles, not operated by the owners, but by lessees who were regularly qualified motor carriers acting under and by virtue … The exception was announced very clearly by the San Antonio Court of Civil Appeals in the case of Terrell v. Middleton, Tex.Civ.App., 187 S.W. 367, 369 , writ ref., 108 Tex. 14 , 191 S.W. 1138 .

Campbell v. Schrock

10 S.W.2d 165 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 4, 1928

that where mineral rights are given as here, and the right to the use of surface is not excepted or qualified, the right to use as much of the surface as is deemed necessary or convenient follows as implied rights incident … When the' lease clearly shows an intention to convey the minerals in place in the land, the lease vests title thereto in the lessee, and there is no difference in the interests conveyed, whether the conveying instrument is

Strawn Independent School Dist. v. Stuart

21 S.W.2d 713 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Sep 27, 1929

forth in the special act; that during said time it had maintained a public free school, and had regularly elected a board of trustees; that it had voted bonds, which had been sold and were outstanding; that by a vote of the qualified … It is our view that we cannot regard the fact allegations of either party for any purpose, and that we cannot indulge in any presumption that facts exist supporting the judgment, because the record clearly shows that the

Randol Mill Pharmacy v. Miller

413 S.W.3d 844 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Sep 19, 2013

The pharmacy’s report clearly indicates that the pharmacist to whom Dr. Tan transmitted his order noted Dr. Tan’s specifications for 200 mg/ml lipoic acid injections. … Tan, appellants did in fact “dispense” the- lipoic acid, which qualifies them as health care providers under the TMLA.

Garrison v. Texas Commerce Bank

560 S.W.2d 451 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 17, 1977

Clearly the trial court had continuing control of the interlocutory order granting a divorce with power to set it aside even at a subsequent term of court. Kone v. … As the surviving spouse of Candace Mossier Garrison, Barnett Wade Garrison qualified as an interested person as defined in Section 3(r), Tex.Prob.Code Ann.

Wenk v. City National Bank

613 S.W.2d 345 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 26, 1981

Defendant Wenk predicates his appeal on five points of error, several of which are clearly multifarious. … Greenwood being a qualified person under the statute to make such affidavit.

Home Indemnity Company v. Mosqueda

464 S.W.2d 902 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 11, 1971

Appellant contends that the language of the Board’s award clearly contemplates that a legal guardian was to be appointed. … The mother never qualified as guardian. The insurer indicated it would start payments to the minors as soon as it was furnished guardianship papers.

Mitchell v. State

636 S.W.2d 543 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 23, 1982

Since the instrument referred to by the prosecutor and made the basis of appellant’s complaint was received in evidence only after the proper predicate was established, we fail to see any way the argument could constitute … None of these cases purports to extend the doctrine announced therein to the punishment phase of the trial, since clearly the defendant’s guilt or innocence is no longer in question.

Gray, Ritter & Graham, PC Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLC Neblett Beard & Arsenault, LLP Don M. Downing And Adam J. Levitt v. Goldman Phipps PLLC F/K/A Goldman Pennebaker & Phipps, PC Mikal C. Watts, PC And Murray Law Firm

511 S.W.3d 639 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 8, 2015

did not consent to the forum-selection clause in the documents establishing the qualified settlement fund. … establish minimum contacts with a state.”