Case law

Green v. Dickson

208 S.W.2d 119 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 8, 1948

Wallace was appointed as successor in the event of his death, resig--nation, or failure to qualify. … It is the established rule that, iiu determining whether an aged testator has. sufficient mental capacity to make a valid!

Fielder v. State

683 S.W.2d 565 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 23, 1985

The court held that “where the psychologist is qualified to testify about the battered wife syndrome, and the defendant establishes her identity as a battered woman, expert evidence on the battered wife syndrome must be admitted … Where the phychologist is qualified to testify about the battered woman syndrome, and the defendant establishes her identity as a battered woman expert testimony on the battered woman syndrome is admissible.

Taylor, Walter Earl

Court of Appeals of Texas · Apr 23, 2015

To establish deficient performance under the first prong, a defendant must show that no reasonable trial strategy could justify counsel’s conduct. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689; Andrews v. … So, there’s only a requirement that a Juror be qualified and, in fact, expressly does not have to be registered[.]” See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

Community Life & Health Insurance Co. v. McCall

497 S.W.2d 358 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 25, 1973

expressed therein, injected in a medical area where only expert medical testimony can serve to prove the reasonable medical probability of causal connection, the certificate of death may not convey an opinion the author is not qualified … Furthermore, the combination of the factual circumstances of an injury and lay testimony, together with expert medical testimony clearly limited to possibilities, is insufficient to support an inferential fact where the question

Anthony Pools v. Charles & David, Inc.

797 S.W.2d 666 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 9, 1990

The affidavit fails to qualify under any of the “hearsay exceptions” of Rule 803, and could only be admissible under Rule 806 for the purpose of impeachment. … AH of this was clearly error amounting to such a denial of the rights of appellant as was reasonably calculated to cause and probably did cause rendition of an improper judgment. Tex.R.App.P. 81(b)(1).

Mitchell v. Hancock

196 S.W. 694 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 17, 1917

Mitchell had been, by order and judgment of the district court of Tarrant county, appointed receiver of the Commonwealth Bonding & Casualty Insurance Company and its property and assets, and that such receiver had been duly qualified … The rule so clearly stated was applied in Bort v. Yaw, 46 Iowa, 323 , and there is no decision in this state to the contrary.”

Stephenville, N. & S. T. Ry. Co. v. Wheat

173 S.W. 974 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 14, 1914

It says: “The ruling of the court in giving, refusing, or qualifying of instructions to the jury shall be ■ regarded as approved unless excepted to as provided for in the foregoing article.” Laws 1913, p. 114. … And, according to a well-established *979 rule o£ decisions in force before the enactment of that statute, if a party requests two different instructions upon the same issue, and one of them is given, he cannot complain of

Herring Bancorp, Inc. v. Mikkelsen

529 S.W.3d 216 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Sep 8, 2017

In fulfilling that duty, we give the contract its plain, grammatical meaning unless doing so would clearly defeat the intention of the parties. Id. … Notwithstanding this designation of four separate classes, for purposes of determining whether a corporation qualifies for conversion-to a Subchapter S corporation, the voting rights between shares is disregarded.

Ex Parte Lowery

518 S.W.2d 897 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 23, 1975

This is clearly authorized by Tex. Const. art. V, § 11, and Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 1916 (1964). … Was Judge Smith qualified to hear this contempt proceeding, and *903 2. Could he hear it in Hardin County?

T. P. S. v. State

590 S.W.2d 946 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 9, 1979

Nevertheless, section 53.04 clearly applies both to petitions seeking transfer and to petitions seeking delinquency adjudication. … McLaughlin, all qualified experts, who stated that there was a strong possibility of a serious psychiatric or emotional disorder requiring further observation and treatment.

Garcia v. State

23 Tex. Ct. App. 712 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 24, 1887

See the opinion and the statement of the case for evidence held sufficient to establish a conspiracy between the accused and two others to commit the theft, and therefore to have qualified, as evidence, certain statements … See the opinion and the statement of the case for evidence held sufficient to establish a conspiracy between the accused and two others to commit the theft, and therefore to have qualified, as evidence, certain statements

Jung Fu Chien v. Chen

759 S.W.2d 484 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Sep 21, 1988

These, it is said, recognize partnerships “as persons” but only “in a qualified sense.” Glasscock v. Price, 92 Tex. 271 , 47 S.W. 965, 966 (Tex.1898). … The conspiracy allegation did not imply an independent cause of action, of course, but only presupposed Tomas’s establishing one of the actionable wrongs listed above, with the additional evidence necessary to establish that

Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Strauss

243 S.W. 528 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 21, 1922

W. 286 , clearly states the lessor cannot recover damages for failure to commence exploration for oil under a contract giving the lessee an option to begin drilling or paying rent, citing Carper v. … The probable drainage must necessarily be established by experts under a given state of facts or circumstances.

Arkoma Basin Exploration Co. v. FMF Associates 1990-A, Ltd.

118 S.W.3d 445 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 21, 2003

Appellants’ assertion that their representations were “opinions” does not make their representations immune from fraud claims. … The verdict should be set aside only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Dow Chem. Co., 46 S.W.3d at 242 ; Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex.1986).

Rothermel v. Duncan

365 S.W.2d 398 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 7, 1963

The testimony clearly raises the issue of undue influence, Long v. Long, supra. … “You are further instructed that undue influence can be established by circumstantial as well as by direct evidence.

Eldridge v. Fort Worth Transit Co.

136 S.W.2d 955 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 19, 1940

It is a matter of public record, in this court, of which we take judicial notice, that a recall election had been duly called for July 23rd, 1938, for the purpose of permitting the qualified electors of the City of Fort Worth … understood this, as appears from the fact that he opened the floodgates to a great mass of testimony relative to the wisdom of the franchise, and made, or at least signed, a document purporting to be his findings of fact, clearly

State v. Hale

96 S.W.2d 135 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 1, 1936

We construe the act as giving consent to bring suit for the establishment vel non of an existent liability for consequential and recoverable damage resulting from construction of the highway “in such -manner as to overflow … This distinction is clearly drawn and stated in Nussbaum v. Bell County, 97 Tex. 86 , 76 S.W. 430 .

Blanks v. Radford

188 S.W.2d 879 · Court of Appeals of Texas · May 25, 1945

The will was probated August 1, 1933, and in due time the independent executors provided for in the will qualified and thereafter completed their work as such. … The conclusion is believed to be sound and warranted by the evidence, which clearly demonstrates that the judgment against Blanks had not become dormant or barred.

Texas Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Seiders

9 Tex. Civ. App. 431 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 30, 1895

The court qualified the bill of exceptions taken to the admission of the testimony, as follows: “At a former term of the court this cause was tried, resulting in a mistrial. … The jury is not unreasonably presumed to have intelligence to understand and pass upon the facts, and determine what facts are established as well as what the facts prove.

Oliver v. Corzelius

223 S.W.2d 271 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 20, 1949

The holding of the .Supreme Court in our opinion authoritatively established the relevancy of the testimony. … This testimony was clearly hearsay and can have no probative force or effect.” Oliver v. Corzelius, Tex.Civ.App., 215 S.W.2d 231 , loc. cit. 241.