Case law

GALVESTON TRANSIT COMPANY v. Morgan

408 S.W.2d 728 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 17, 1966

The answers made by the jury to these issues were not so contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong. Figueroa v. … The statement cannot qualify as a “short hand rendering of the facts,” but was an opinion or conclusion based on facts which could have been presented to the jury.

Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Lufkin Indus., Inc.

564 S.W.3d 15 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 12, 2017

While ratification and waiver are normally considered questions of fact, they may become questions of law if the facts and circumstances are clearly established. See Ostrowski v. Ivanhoe Prop. … Sarangi's testimony, as a qualified expert witness, was legally sufficient evidence to support the ten million dollar jury award for out-of-pocket damages.

Conyer v. Burckhalter

275 S.W. 606 · Court of Appeals of Texas · May 9, 1925

The cause of restraint alleged in the' petition for the writ clearly excludes the existence of any fact in connection 'with the restraint of the child that would tend to class same as a criminal case. … the contention being that the cross-examination objected to was not permissible, although for "the purpose of showing his interest in the subject-matter of the suit, because said testimony would have deprived him of his immunity

Garner v. Bowles

233 S.W. 300 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Apr 23, 1921

. * * - * I have raised five children of my own in Bowie, and am as well qualified to raise them as my own.” … by writing in their hearts sentiments of affection and establishing between them and their children ties which cannot exist between the children and any other persons.

Gilkey v. Allen

617 S.W.2d 308 · Court of Appeals of Texas · May 14, 1981

The will was admitted to probate on May 25, 1977, and defendant subsequently qualified as independent executrix. Thereafter, on March 14, 1979, the present suit contesting the will was instituted by plaintiff. … The will appears to be complete within itself and clearly shows that the testator intended to will his property to Margaret Gilkey Allen.

Pearson v. Lloyd

214 S.W. 759 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 12, 1919

forth the Kate Weaser judgment as a bar to appellants’ recovery, alleged that Kate Weaser was appointed temporary administra-trix of the estate of George Gostick, deceased, on the 20th day of May, 1908, and'that she duly qualified … It was there further held: “The general rule is well established that a judgment rendered by a court, even of general jurisdiction, is void if it had, at the time of the rendition of the judgment, no jurisdiction of the person

Marcopoulos v. State

548 S.W.3d 697 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Apr 3, 2018

The Supreme Court held that, where the five officers involved in the arrest outnumbered the three arrestees and all had been handcuffed and secured in separate patrol cars before the search of Gant's car began, Gant "clearly … We hold the State failed to carry its burden of establishing the search qualified as an inventory pursuant to an impoundment of a vehicle. See Gauldin , 683 S.W.2d at 415 ; Moskey , 333 S.W.3d at 701 .

State v. Fairbanks-Morse & Co.

246 S.W.2d 647 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 1, 1952

However, other considerations, establishing as baseless the State's charge of antitrust violations, should be discussed. … And if the completed contract under examination in the cited case be outside the scope of such laws, then, a fortiori, the preliminary negotiations here described are likewise immune.

Simmons v. Texas City Terminal Railway Co.

654 S.W.2d 791 · Court of Appeals of Texas · May 26, 1983

Indeed, the intent of the Congress is clearly to the contrary. The cases cited by Appellee are controlling. … The status which would qualify Appellant for benefits under one statute by definition eliminates the possibility of coverage under the other.

Wachholder v. Kitchens

126 S.W.2d 519 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 17, 1939

Thompson in this case was wholly inadmissible insofar as they expressed their opinions on the various; matters testified about in view of the fact *522 that they had never been properly qualified . as expert witnesses.” … For a typical case, in our Supreme Court, where the rule is invoked as to the duty to point out clearly and distinctly the error in the charge, see Isbell et al. v.

International & Great Northern Railway Co. v. Kuehn

2 Tex. Civ. App. 210 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 11, 1893

The testimony was clearly inadmissible. … So qualified, and qualified by the company’s precedent right to the use, there was no error in the charge.

Beacon National Insurance Co. v. Texas State Board of Insurance

598 S.W.2d 694 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Apr 23, 1980

We have some question as to whether appellants have established a justi-ciable interest sufficient to maintain this suit for declaratory judgment. California Products, Inc. v. … The addition of Section 19 to Article 21.49 materially qualifies the liability that each insurer must bear under the Act.

Nueces County v. Nueces County Drainage Dist. No. 2

5 S.W.2d 620 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 28, 1928

The notice to and the recognition by the commissioners’ court of this fund and its supervision thereover is clearly established by the testimony. … It undertook to establish that Mr. Gussett was in arrears with the county over $20,000, in the opinion of the accountant, not showing in what fund it occurred.

Lossing v. Hughes

244 S.W. 556 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 1, 1922

We can conceive of no enactment which more clearly falls within that category. … The statute denies to the owners and users of commercial motor vehicles the protection, privileges, and immunities which are granted to the users of the same kind of motor vehicles for agricultural purposes.

Tyler Mirror & Glass Company v. Simpkins

407 S.W.2d 807 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 13, 1966

As the above authorities indicate, a layman’s testimony upon this question is of no benefit to the jury and has no probative value because *814 it involves a subject clearly within the field of medical science. … usually not qualified to testify as to cause of, or to diagnose, a disease, and the jury should not he permitted to draw its conclusions by speculation or surmise. * * *” (Emphasis added).

Texas Industrial Accident Board v. Industrial Foundation of the South

526 S.W.2d 211 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 10, 1975

Subsection 14 provides that student records at educational institutions could not be inspected and copied; subsection 15 made birth and death records in the Bureau of Vital Statistics immune from inspection. … It is well established in this state that the paramount or cardinal rule of construction of statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature.

Home Indemnity Company v. Draper

504 S.W.2d 570 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 23, 1973

The testimony clearly established that Draper’s wife was capable of doing all of the things for Draper which he could not do for himself, and the jury was justified in concluding from this evidence that Draper’s wife was … However, Home argues that the evidence failed to establish the reasonable cost of the nursing service rendered by Mrs. Draper in this case. Home contends that since Mrs.

Buford v. Inge Const. Co.

279 S.W. 513 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 28, 1925

Appellee also established the amount of the claim by vouchers and checks showing what had been actually expended by it in the performance of the said work. … The trial court found in favor of appellee on the first of these issues, and this finding, being clearly supported by evidence, must be accepted by this court as an established fact in this case.

Schaff v. Copass

262 S.W. 234 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Apr 17, 1924

To this extent the duty of each was qualified, not absolute. … 17,18] We think the picture referred to in the sixth contention was clearly inadmissible.

Fleming & Associates, L.L.P. v. Barton

425 S.W.3d 560 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 27, 2014

You are currently wrongfully withholding $693,690.00 that is clearly owed to us.” … The trial court denied the Barton Group’s motion with respect to the $21,981.31 that they conceded could have qualified as local counsel fees under the contract.