Case law

Republic National Bank of Dallas v. Fredericks

274 S.W.2d 431 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Dec 10, 1954

Fredericks takes the opposite view, namely, that said testamentary instrument in no respect empowers the trustee to invade the corpus of estate so established. … Houser, 268 Pa. 401 , 112 A. 29 , the first beneficiary was either clearly authorized to use the corpus or his right was in the nature of a determinable fee. Here, Mrs.

Jackson v. State

50 S.W.3d 579 · Court of Appeals of Texas · May 31, 2001

Texas Rule of Evidence 702 permits a witness who is “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” to testify “in the form of an opinion or otherwise” if “scientific, technical, or other … Therefore, we will continue to apply the previously established exception.

Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Kiel

195 S.W.2d 405 · Court of Appeals of Texas · May 24, 1946

In other words, the plaintiff has certain issues that he must establish by a preponderance of the evidence; in the end you will answer those issues, or you will answer them against him. … The extent of such examination is largely within the discretion of the trial court, and his acts will not be revised on appeal unless it clearly appears that his discretion has been abused, 26 T.J. 660, § 95, et seq.

Highland Park Independent School Dist. of Dallas County v. Republic Ins. Co.

80 S.W.2d 1053 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Dec 15, 1934

This policy clearly appears from the above statutory quotation. … In the instant case, the Undisputed evidence establishes that appellee’s rendition shows no personal property subject to taxation, and that the board of equalization, as to value, raised its assessment from no taxable property

West Side Oil Co. v. McDorman

244 S.W. 167 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 4, 1922

Reid was duly qualified and acting secretary from March 16, 1920, to April 20, 1920. … The court was not seeking to ascertain the facts establishing estoppel.

Hollins v. State

876 S.W.2d 923 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 31, 1994

In points of error three and four, appellant contends the trial court erred by excluding certain statements of defense witnesses Clifford Smith and Jason Routt as hearsay because the statements qualify as exceptions to the … A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

Cannady v. Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co.

219 S.W.2d 816 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Apr 15, 1949

In the first place the establishment by defendant of any one of the several acts of contributory negligence and proximate cause would preclude a recovery by plaintiff. … The subsequent remarks by defendant’s counsel in an effort to explain what he meant by his previous statements clearly indicate that he was only asking the jury to consider the court’s charge.

Allen v. Strode

62 S.W.2d 289 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 29, 1933

Strode, special judge, who had been duly elected and had duly qualified as such. … St. art. 1824]). is now clearly established in our jurisprudence. Walling v. Harendt (Tex. Civ. App.) 37 S.W. (2d) 280 ; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Canty, Judge, 115 Tex. 537 , 285 S. W. 296 ; Cortimeglia v.

Lifeguard Benefit Services, Inc. v. Direct Medical Network Solutions, Inc.

308 S.W.3d 102 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 11, 2010

All DirectMed customers are members of CASA, but all CASA members are not customers of DirectMed; CASA members qualify to purchase plans from retailers other than DirectMed. … (“A trial court abuses its discretion in granting a temporary injunction unless ‘it is clearly established by the facts that one seeking such relief is threatened with an actual irreparable injury if the injunction is not

Lawson v. Baker

220 S.W. 260 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 25, 1920

The court discussed a number of the cases, and distinguished clearly the difference between a loan or an investment and a deposit subject to check. … Any legislative direction to the contrary would be clearly unconstitutional.

Sturdivant v. State

445 S.W.3d 338 · Court of Appeals of Texas · May 14, 2013

Doc Muhammad and Chatman both testified that they received immunity from prosecution in exchange for their truthful testimony in this proceeding. *343 B. … The corroborating evidence need not be legally sufficient in itself to establish the defendant’s guilt. Casanova, 383 S.W.3d at 538 .

Logan v. Logan

112 S.W.2d 515 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Dec 13, 1937

In answer to such allegations of the defendant, the plaintiff pleaded that since the defendant had offered the will of Eugene Logan for probate, having qualified thereunder as independent executrix and accepted the benefits … During this 13 years he had become established in a lucrative business.

City of Houston v. Harris County Outdoor Advertising Ass'n

732 S.W.2d 42 · Court of Appeals of Texas · May 7, 1987

those established by this section.” … Clearly, the HBA and the TLAA establish minimum regulations for the outdoor advertising business.

Neyland v. Brammer

73 S.W.2d 884 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 8, 1933

Mary Louise Bram-mer, who was left as sole devisee under his will, and who qualified as executrix thereunder, joined with Pearson, Merrill and Wilder in carrying out the plans to incorporate said gravel properties by forming … the sand and gravel business or in the stock of the Gulf Gravel Company, or the Saxet Sand & Gravel Company, or The Saxet Company, and plaintiff’s suit not being based upon quantum meruit, plaintiff has wholly failed to establish

Fenner v. American Surety Co. of New York

156 S.W.2d 279 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 6, 1941

The context of the court’s definition clearly discloses the meaning and effect of each of said terms. … Appellants’ bill of exception is qualified by the court by setting forth part of the argument of appellants’ counsel to which appellee’s counsel was replying in making the argument complained of.

Stuckey v. Union Mortgage & Investment Company

383 S.W.2d 429 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 22, 1964

Appellants further alleged that Ap-pellee was never able to obtain an unqualified commitment and that the only one procured by Appellee was a qualified conditional commitment. … These features clearly distinguish the Hutchings case from the one under consideration.

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

38 Tex. Civ. App. 81 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 25, 1905

The negligence of Perry in this or any other respect was not conclusively established by the evidence, if at all. The fourth assignment is also overruled. … the handle bars could not be used with any effect to stop or check this car, and also that under the circumstances it was not negligence to fail to use them, and we may assume that they so found, still the evidence shows clearly

Chico Auto Parts & Service, Inc. v. Crockett

512 S.W.3d 560 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 18, 2017

for its decision in its written order, including that: (1) there was no privity of contract between Chico and the Defendants; (2) the lawsuit was barred by collateral estoppel and judicial estoppel; and (3) Crockett was immune … To the contrary, the record clearly indicates that Chico was aware of Black Strata’s role in this matter based on Black Strata remitting two payments to Chico in response to the invoice Chico sent to Montcrest, and based

Langford v. Pickens

288 S.W.2d 568 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 14, 1956

Bostick may have had the qualifying share, I presume?’ “His answer was: ‘Yes, sir.’ "The testimony further shows that Mr. Bostick had been in the employ of Mr. … The evidence clearly showed, S.F. 841, that Tom Cooke had been connected with Mr.

Dyer v. Caldcleugh & Powers

392 S.W.2d 523 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 2, 1965

We recognize the well-established rule of law that an affirmative false statement knowingly made as to a material fact believed and relied on by the other party to the extent of causing him to enter a contract to his detriment … exaggerated statements of value, and expressions of opinion about the business, do not amount to actionable misrepresentations where the parties deal at arm’s-length and have equal means of information and are equally well qualified