Case law

Collum v. Neuhoff

507 S.W.2d 920 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 17, 1974

Consequently, if those benefits are never realized because no similar restrictions are imposed on any other lots, it would be inequitable to enforce it by the drastic remedy of mandatory injunction, even though the restriction may qualify … In the present case the language imposing the restriction on appellants’ lot was clearly intended as part of a general development plan.

Wade v. Anderson

602 S.W.2d 347 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 19, 1980

This unchallenged finding clearly shows a violation of the deed restrictions, and the mandatory injunction was properly granted. … Robert Steele, a resident of the subdivision, owned a house therein which was covered with aluminum siding. [5] An expert witness, duly qualified to express an opinion on the subject, testified without contradiction that

Hubbard v. Texas Indemnity Ins. Co.

136 S.W.2d 627 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 4, 1940

and duration of said alleged injuries were uncertain, indefinite and incapable of being satisfactorily established. … Plaintiffs’ one proposition, it seems to us, does not fully and clearly present the grounds of error contended for in their brief, and for that reason we have considered the errors as set out in their assignments of error

Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. State

56 Tex. Civ. App. 353 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 9, 1909

adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person; and of article 19 of the State Constitution providing that no citizen of this State shall be deprived of his life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities … It is, however, sometimes difficult to clearly define the line between a delegation of legislative power and a grant of authority to perform acts which are in their nature quasi legislative, but not strictly so.

Hamilton v. Newbury

412 S.W.2d 801 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 3, 1967

Basic and well established principles of law guide us in our resolution of the question thus presented. Art. … Those restrictions are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation. They are a conseqence of territorial limitations on the power of the respective States.

United Scaffolding, Inc. v. James Levine

520 S.W.3d 631 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Sep 1, 2015

USI contends that pursuant to its agreement with Valero, Valero is required to notify USI of its intent to use a USI scaffold, following which a USI employee qualified as a “competent person” is to inspect the structure … Not only does Broussard’s response clearly indicate that Valero was capable of inspecting the subject scaffolding, but Broussard also directly stated that Valero potentially bore responsibility for the scaffold in question

Bolstad v. Egleson

326 S.W.2d 506 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 25, 1959

As mentioned before, these findings established four separate grounds of negligence on the part of appellant Bolstad, each of which was a proximate cause of Joe D. … Appellants having raised this issue, the above mentioned testimony of Van Ostrand, who was shown to have been a qualified truck driver with some 30 years of driving experience, was clearly admissible. Riley v.

Southern Ornamental Iron Works v. Morrow

101 S.W.2d 336 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 8, 1937

Shepherd, 105 Tex. 237 , 147 S.W. 224 , clearly recognized the doctrine. … The conditions under which defendants may be bound by judgments as herein discussed by. us are clearly exceptions to that statutory provision.

Houston & Texas Central Railroad v. Shapard

54 Tex. Civ. App. 596 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 27, 1909

At least it is established beyond question by the undisputed testimony. … Clearly, the lock was not broken.

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

30 Tex. Civ. App. 431 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 19, 1902

There is no affirmative error in the charge; it merely failed to withdraw a fact from the jury which appellant claims was established as a matter of law. … The appellee’s testimony clearly shows that he did not know that the cars were being switched or to be switched at the time; that he did not see the car nor hear it coming.

Coffee v. Manly

166 S.W.2d 377 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 16, 1942

specific description of the land, followed by a declaration that the land so described is the same as that conveyed to the signers of said instrument in a certain deed, and such declaration is untrue, except in a limited and qualified … It clearly shows which of the “some of us” is meant, namely, Effie Shelton and Ruth Ballard.

Ladd v. Anderson

89 S.W.2d 1041 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 29, 1935

Where, however, the facts and circumstances relating to the subject are admitted or clearly established, waiver becomes a ■question of law.” … Hamilton additional time in which to pay the note due March 1, 1933,” does not clearly establish a waiver of their rights as indorsers, and the trial court erred in so holding.

St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Griffin

154 S.W. 583 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 12, 1913

When a man has qualified him *586 self for a particular avocation, if lie be deprived of tbe privilege of exercising sueb avocation, great injury is inflicted upon him and those dependent upon Mm. … constitutionality of the Blacklisting Law, and have made such discussion of same as we deemed the questions entitled to receive, and bearing in mind the rules for construing laws attacked upon the grounds of unconstitutionality, as clearly

Mosher Manufacturing Co. v. Boyles

62 Tex. Civ. App. 636 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 12, 1910

facts sent this court, and we do not find anywhere the admission asserted by the appellant, that plaintiff and Joe Miller, or plaintiff and *639 the yard gang,'were fellow servants; nor do we find that it was conclusively established … the special charges requested by the defendant, instructed the jury as to who were fellow servants with the plaintiff and that under the law the defendant was not responsible for their acts of negligence, he erroneously qualified

O. v. P.

560 S.W.2d 122 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 3, 1977

Tex.R.Civ.P. 372 clearly sets out the proper procedure whereby a party may make a bill of exception for proper inclusion in the appellate record. … In reversing and remanding the case, the court wrote: “This court . . . knows of no rule that permits a court arbitrarily to refuse to permit a child of proper age and otherwise qualified to testify when one of the parties

Hunter v. Koisch

798 S.W.2d 857 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 11, 1990

The primary question in Lehman was whether Randy Lehman, an adopted adult, qualified as a “descendant” of his adoptive father within the terms of the adoptive father’s will. … Even though Lehman is clearly distinguishable, we find guidance from that opinion.

Raul Rodriguez v. State

456 S.W.3d 271 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Dec 22, 2014

Penal Code Section 9.31(b)(5)(A) qualifies this defense. … to establish that [Barron] qualified for the traveling exception or that he held a license to carry the handgun used in the shooting.”

Buchner v. Wait

137 S.W. 383 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Apr 17, 1911

House qualified as trustee under this agreement, took charge of all of the property, and has continued to manage it under said agreement. … Pannell’s death shall he immediately turned over hy him to the executors named in the will, thus clearly contemplating that appellees would accept and execute the trust imposed upon them by the testator. [3] The next contention

Chatham v. State

889 S.W.2d 345 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 4, 1994

Much of the evidence complained about was clearly admissible. … Clearly, counsel qualified his final statement with the words, “if that becomes necessary.” He did not anticipate the punishment phase, he merely acknowledged it was a possibility.

Gibbons Mfg. Co. v. Milan

17 S.W.2d 844 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Apr 25, 1929

Ward, for the purpose of qualifying them to participate in the election and to act as directors of the’ corporation. … Such legally appointed officials should never be displaced without a hearing, unless the facts stated and sworn to clearly show that the danger of injury to the petitioners is too imminent to permit the delay required for