Case law

Delp v. Douglas

948 S.W.2d 483 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 7, 1997

; and (3) the evidence is insufficient to raise a fact issue that must be established before the opponent is entitled to judgment. … Indeed, cases cited by DKW establish this rule. See, e.g., 2175 Lemoine Ave. Corp. v.

Guy, Lester Ray

Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 26, 2015

establishing appellant's guilt, was invalid because it used only seven loci to establish the sperm DNA profile … Furthermore, appellant has not established that he reason.

Smith v. Fishback

123 S.W.2d 771 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 16, 1938

McCutcheon, and we think it clearly deducible from all the evidence that this scheme was formed and carried into execution by David S. McCutcheon and his agents. … Subdivision (l) : “Subscriptions to capital stock necessary to qualify for incorporation when subscribed by not more than fifteen (15) incorporators in a proposed Texas corporation.”

Van Deventer v. Gulf Production Co.

41 S.W.2d 1029 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 6, 1931

The following argument supports this conclusion: The facts establishing the issue of ratification are as follows: (a) Though L. Q. … The qualifying expressions-‘insofar as same affects property herein described,’ and ‘insofar as it covers the property herein described,’ also ‘the royalty interest to be received by grantee is the royalty from oil produced

Shelton v. Kalbow

489 S.W.3d 32 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 22, 2016

See id. at 21-22 (“[W]e have never held that there was a clear intent for the general description to control when directly contrary metes.and bounds clearly defined an area owned by the grantor,”). 26 5. … Chapter 258.does not create a new basis for a county to establish a claim tó a roadway; rather, "it merely establishes a procedure whereby [a] county can clarify a public interest already in existence prior to September 1

Kirk v. Beard

334 S.W.2d 531 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 8, 1960

Pitner qualified as co-executors of the estate and administered the same. J. E. Sexton, who had never been married, died on March 1, 1958, and he was seized and possessed of both real and personal property. … The facts here show a performance sufficient under the law of estoppel to support the admission of parol evidence to establish the agreement. Hooks v.

in Re Sylvia Martinez

Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 12, 2015

United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972) (failure to disclose promise of immunity in exchange for testimony violates Brady); United States v. … It further qualifies the offense by requiring the arresting officer to afford the perpetrator an opportunity to explain her conduct. San Antonio Code of Ordinances § 21-25(c)(3).

Green, Alfred Charles

Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 25, 2015

In fact, in closing he stated: “I'm not going to get up here and lie to you . . . clearly we’ve stipulated that these things are true.” … The twenty-five-year sentence is the lowest in the range for a conviction where there are two prior qualifying convictions. TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(d). The jury also assessed no fine.

State v. Jasdeep Singh Chana, Manjit Singh Chana and Amar Pal Singh Chana

464 S.W.3d 769 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Apr 2, 2015

Standards Applicable to Expert Opinion Evidence If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge would assist the jury, a witness who is qualified as an expert by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, … On appeal, the State asserts that the trial court erred by excluding the evidence because “[i]t is clearly established under Texas law that a property owner’s prior statements regarding fair market value of the owner’s

Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc. v. RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP

520 S.W.3d 145 · Court of Appeals of Texas · May 3, 2017

Elness further argues that RLJ failed to establish an exception to the hearsay rule. … When it did so, it stated that its settlement agreement with EBCO “clearly shows that the settlement ... was for damages relating to construction and EBCO’s contract” and cites specifically to provisions in the settlement

Braden v. South Main Bank

837 S.W.2d 733 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 13, 1992

However, in the sentence prior to the one quoted by the appellant, the Supreme Court qualifies its statement by stating that a sanction of the magnitude as the one in this case raises the possibility that the ability to continue … The discovery sanctions imposed by a trial court are within that court’s discretion and will be set aside only if the court clearly abused its discretion. Bodnow, 721 S.W.2d at 840 .

Wichita Royalty Co. v. City Nat. Bank of Wichita Falls

74 S.W.2d 661 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 10, 1933

The principles laid down clearly make the bank liable for the sum applied to the debt of Tamblin Tamblin. … However, I shall not undertake to discuss them, since at all events we must follow the established rule in this state. Among those cases are the following: Duckett v.

Loeffler v. King

228 S.W.2d 201 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 10, 1950

But from the very nature of this theory the right of each land holder is qualified, and is limited to legitimate operations. … It was clearly held that the drainage of oil brought about by the unlawful use of the va-cuum pump could serve as. a basis for recovery of damages.

Saldinger, Greg

Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 24, 2015

Here, appellant’s counsel asked a broad question in the abstract, regarding whether the venire members would be more likely to believe a police officer over someone else, without any qualifying information. … Accordingly, the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in refusing to strike these prospective jurors for cause.3 We overrule appellant’s first issue. II.

Walter Demond v. State

452 S.W.3d 435 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 21, 2014

Furthermore, Demond admitted on cross-examination that during the years that Price was on retainer, Clark Thomas performed work for the PEC that Price was qualified to handle and the work would have cost less than $2,000 … The variance at issue in this case clearly does not fit into the first category because how a person commits misapplication of fiduciary property does not involve a statutorily defined

Webb, Michael Renard

Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 4, 2015

Constitution has been clearly established by the Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668~ (1984). … The standard for establishing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is enunciated in Strickland v. Washington, supra.

CPS Energy v. Public Utility Commission

537 S.W.3d 157 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 31, 2017

Although the FCC rule clearly and unambiguously mandates the use of the default rate of return in the absence of a state-authorized rate, the Fee Order further illuminates the FCC’s decision to adopt a default rate of return … collected by an electric utility...,"), 39,302(7) (" ‘Transftion charges' means nonbypassable amounts to be charged for the use or availability of electric services, approved by the commission under a financing order to recover qualified

Lyon v. Gray

288 S.W. 545 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 3, 1926

It seems, however, to be qualified by a subsequent clause which provides that, as a further consideration moving to Gray, Lyon agrees ,to pay all taxes, as weE as the interest and annual coupons, due and to become due to … Clearly, this verdict violates this provision of the statutes, and the rule is firmly established that where material issues are submitted to the jury, which they have failed to answer, the result is a mistrial, and the court

In re Milton

420 S.W.3d 245 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Dec 19, 2013

Standard of Review in Mandamus Proceedings To be entitled to mandamus relief, a party must establish that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that she lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. … Texas does not qualify as a child’s home state when the child has not lived in Texas for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the action in Texas. See Koester v.

Phillips, Sherron Dondriel

Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 13, 2015

First, an act is ministerial only “if it constitutes a duty clearly fixed and required by law.” Flack, 728 S.W.2d at 789 (quoting State ex rel. Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. Crim. … The only action by the Board which might qualify as “ministerial” under § 508.1411 is the act of providing an inmate with a written reason for denying parole. But this already happened.