Case law

Mitcham v. Bd. of Regents, University of Tex.

670 S.W.2d 371 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Apr 3, 1984

Benny v. Loew’s Inc., 239 F.2d 532 (9th Cir.1956), aff’d sub. nom, Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. … Tex.R.Civ.P. 166-A; Swilley v. Hughes, 488 S.W.2d 64 (Tex.1972).

Moore v. State

740 S.W.2d 883 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 10, 1987

During her ordeal, Brown activated a silent alarm, and in response thereto police officers arrived at the scene and observed Brown and Moore leaving the store together. … In support of this argument, he cites us to Harris v. State, 562 S.W.2d 463 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). Moore misreads Harris .

Billings v. State

725 S.W.2d 757 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 22, 1987

CURTISS BROWN, C.J., and ROBERTSON and MURPHY, JJ. OPINION ROBERTSON, Justice. The indictment contained three "counts" alleging, theft, misapplication of fiduciary property and official misconduct. … The evidence showed that Tom Mackey was a member of the center's board of directors and that Clark Flourney was a member of the corporation's board of directors.

Hackney Mfg. Co. v. Celum

189 S.W. 988 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 23, 1916

See Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Webb, 181 S.W. 853 ; United States Gypsum Co. v. Shields, 106 S.W. 724 ; Bonding Co. v. Bomar, 169 S.W. 1060 ; Kirby v. Thurmond, 152 S.W. 1099 . … Wills v. Tyer, 186 S.W. 862 .

Kenyon v. United Salt Corp.

129 S.W.2d 402 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 6, 1937

Browne (Kenyon and Browne), J. M. … Thomas & Co. v. Hawthorne, Tex.Civ.App., 245 *406 S.W. 966; Golden v. First State Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 38 S.W.2d 628 ; Whitham & Co. v. Allen, Tex.Civ.App., 64 S.W.2d 1024 .

Brown, Richard Jr.

Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 27, 2015

W06-62942-S(B) THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE 282ND JUDICIAL V. DISTRICT COURT RICHARD BROWN, JR. … SIGNED this 1-V day ofMarch, 2015.

Campbell v. State

632 S.W.2d 165 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 11, 1982

Nathan v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 611 S.W.2d 69, 75 . … Brown. Such testimony is sufficient to identify the victim alleged in the indictment. Harrington v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 547 S.W.2d 621, 624 .

Austin Bridge Company v. State

427 S.W.2d 925 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Apr 24, 1968

Brown of B. G. … State v. Martin Bros., 138 Tex. 505 , 160 S.W.2d 58 . Points four, five and six are overruled.

Pitchfork Land and Cattle Company v. King

335 S.W.2d 624 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Apr 25, 1960

Justice Brown, speaking for our Supreme Court in Taylor, B. & H. Ry. Co. v. … Hood v. Texas Indemnity Ins. Co., 146 Tex. 522 , 209 S.W.2d 345 ; Board of Firemen’s Relief & Retirement Fund Trustees of Houston v. Marks, 150 Tex. 433 , 242 S.W.2d 181 , 27 A.L.R.2d 965 .

Hoard v. McFarland

229 S.W. 687 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 10, 1921

Brown and McFarland and Lee are all named as parties defendant. … Watkins v. Willis, 58 Tex. 523 .

Fry v. Jackson

264 S.W. 612 · Court of Appeals of Texas · May 31, 1924

See Kerr v. Riddle (Tex. Civ. App.) 31 S. W. 328 ; Browning v. Hinerman (Tex. Civ. App.) 224 S. W. 236 ; Page v. Tucker (Tex. Civ. App.) 218 S. W. 584 ; Ruling Case Law, p. 321, § 20. … See Couchman v. City of Dallas (Tex. Civ. App.) 249 S. W. 234 ; Oil Corporation v. Waggoner (Tex. Civ. App.) 224 S. W. 230 ; Page v. Tucker (Tex. Civ. App.) 218 S. W. 584 ; Browning v. Hinerman (Tex. Civ. App.) 224 S.

Smith v. Smith

424 S.W.2d 244 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 18, 1968

But for Brown’s activities and repeated efforts the plaintiffs would not have participated in the transaction. There are, of course, some differences between the facts in Brown v. … But there is a marked parallel between many of the activities on the part of appellant in the instant case and those of Brown which the Supreme Court recites in upholding the judgment of the trial court in Brown v.

Pope Photo Records, Inc. v. Malone

539 S.W.2d 224 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 26, 1976

At least, the Supreme Court, after reviewing the Huttash opinion quoting that language from Brown v. … San Jacinto Bldg., Inc. v. Brown, supra, at 166-67. The only Texas case which Pope cites for its proposition is Red River Nat. Bank v.

Uvalde Const. Co. v. Shannon

165 S.W.2d 512 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 9, 1942

Texas Coca-cola Bottling Company v. Kubena, Tex.Civ.App., 90 S. W.2d 605 ; Hill v. Uvalde Construction Company, Tex.Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 283 . … For application of the same principle to Exception 29 (R.S.1925, Art. 1995), see Blanton v. Garrett, 133 Tex. 399 , 129 S. W.2d 623 ; A. H. Belo Corporation v. Blanton, 133 Tex. 391 , 129 S.W.2d 619 .

Houston Milling Co. v. Carlock

183 S.W.2d 1013 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 27, 1944

Reed v. Walker, Tex.Civ.App., 158 S.W.2d 894 ; Underwriters Life Ins. Co. v. Borne-mann, Tex.Civ.App., 141 S.W.2d 1005 . … As said already, the evidence showed that the cause of action, if any, arose in Brown County.

Texas Midland Railroad v. Ritchey

49 Tex. Civ. App. 409 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 29, 1908

It is insisted that “it is the duty of a passenger to exercise reasonable and ordinary care for his own safety in boarding or alighting from a train,” and that there was evidence from which the jury could have found that … Ry. v. Brown, 16 Texas Civ. App., 93; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. Wright, 19 Texas Civ. App., 47; Northern Pac. Ry. v. Urlin, 158 U. S., 277 ; 1 Greenleaf on Ev. (16th ed.), secs. 162a and 162b.

San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Singletary

251 S.W. 325 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 14, 1923

continuously from this board to the crossing. … As was cited by Justice Brown in Railway v.

Stritzinger, John S.

Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 1, 2016

Petitioner also believes both the Third Court of Appeals and the 345th District Court violated specific provisions of Brown v Board of Education, Burlington v Ma Board of Education, and Forrest Grove School District v TA( … (See 10th Circuit Rawlins v Kansas)or a Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

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

27 Tex. Civ. App. 516 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Dec 11, 1901

Rehman v. Railway, 44 N. W. Rep., 522 ; Shumway v. Manufacturing Co., 98 Mich., 411 ; Michael v. Machine Works, 19 S. E. Rep., 261 ; Davis v. Railway, 34 N. E. Rep., 1070 Railway v. Amato, 144 U. … Brown v. Railway, 111 Ala., 275 , 19 So. Rep., 1001 ; Higgins v. Williams, 114 Cal., 176 , 45 Pac. Rep., 1041 .

Rodriguez v. State

889 S.W.2d 559 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 3, 1994

Brown got out of the cab and followed Rodriguez. Rodriguez ran around the corner of the building and, when Brown chased him, fired a single shot at Brown. Brown ducked back around the corner. … Garrett v. State, 851 S.W.2d 853, 857 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). We then determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Ransom *561 v.