Case law

Bolles v. State

512 S.W.3d 456 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 23, 2016

Nevertheless, the State insists that the better argument is that the cropped image was also “ ‘made’ in 1976 when the photograph was taken and the child was clearly under 18.” … The State raises the possibility that holding for appellant regarding the cropped image would allow other persons who possess child pornography to essentially immunize themselves from prosecution by taking photographs of

Bullock v. W & W Vending & Food Service of Texas, Inc.

28 Cont. Cas. Fed. 81,046 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 22, 1981

The Concessionaire shall furnish and train at his expense a sufficient number of qualified employees for the efficient performance of this contract. 6. … The Concessionaire is responsible to AAFES for establishing effective management controls to achieve the standards of operation established in AAFES directives or manuals ... for exercising sound management practices, and

Stamford Hospital District v. Vinson

517 S.W.2d 358 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Dec 20, 1974

If the limitation be not express, then it should be clearly implied.’ ” (Emphasis ours.) *361 See also Parks v. West, 102 Tex. 11 , 111 S.W. 726 (1908); Jordan v. Crudgington, 149 Tex. 237 , 231 S.W.2d 641 (1950). … Further, we cannot agree with plaintiff’s argument that such limitation is clearly implied.

Mary Louise Serafine v. Alexander Blunt and Ashley Blunt

466 S.W.3d 352 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 1, 2015

from, or not in furtherance of acts immunized from, liability by this Act”) (emphasis added); see also Mass. … The Legislature when crafting the clause two definition clearly and unambiguously resorted to an easily understandable concept of what 123 See Cal. Civ. Proc.

Texas & New Orleans Railroad v. Gross

60 Tex. Civ. App. 621 · Court of Appeals of Texas · May 4, 1910

A law making certain railway companies liable, and not others, or exempting one and not others in such cases, would clearly be void. … The proposition under these assignments is that, there being no evidence that these .rules had been promulgated or established by the Texas & New Orleans Railway Company, they were immaterial and irrelevant to any issue in

Metro. Transit Auth. of Harris Cnty. v. Douglas

544 S.W.3d 486 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 27, 2018

Garcia , 253 S.W.3d 653 , 660 (Tex. 2008) (holding that "the [Act] clearly and unambiguously waives immunity") ). … Metro argues that in failing to do so, Douglas did not make out a prima facie case of retaliation and thus cannot establish the trial court's jurisdiction. 8 The Legislature has waived immunity only for those suits in which

Employees Retirement System of Texas v. Bass

840 S.W.2d 710 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 8, 1992

its immunity from liability. … Indeed, while the state may waive immunity from suit, it may not waive its immunity from liability by means of special legislation for the benefit of a particular party, thus denying all citizens the equal protection of the

Estes v. Estes

255 S.W. 649 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 27, 1923

The creation of such a trust must be clearly manifested by the instrument seeking to bring it into existence. … The donor or devisor must either specifically or by clear implication provide that the property' to be administered for the benefit of the beneficiary must be immune from the claims of creditors, and, unless this appears

Tax Payers Ass'n of Lubbock v. City of Lubbock

565 S.W.2d 578 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Apr 24, 1978

. *579 The City of Lubbock, Texas, a home rule municipal corporation, enacted Ordinance No. 7429 calling a bond election to determine if the qualified voters would authorize the issuance of general obligation bonds totalling … The city responds that its ordinances are immune from that attack because Article 717k-2, enacted effective 11 September 1969 and in effect on the date of trial, 2 authorizes the issuance and sale of public securities “at

Thompson v. State

19 Tex. Ct. App. 593 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Dec 16, 1885

There must be established in his mind a conclusion of the guilt or innocence of the accused, and this conclusion must be such as will influence him in his verdict. … confessions, sufficiently establishes his guilt.

Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co. v. Meyer

155 S.W. 309 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 15, 1913

It is established law that a common carrier is not permitted by contract to limit its liability for negligence. … In view of the common-law liability of carriers, which can only be escaped by contract and the fact that this provision is intended as a limitation upon the power to so contract for such immunity, the absence of any qualifying

Consolidated Common School Dist. No. 5 v. Wood

112 S.W.2d 231 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 24, 1937

Under these circumstances, we have not looked carefully into the question of the right of the plaintiffs to maintain the action and have determined to assume, without deciding, their'right to do so, the contrary not so clearly … The steps prescribed for consolidation quite clearly manifest the policy that no such consolidation shall be effected contrary to the will (expressed in the elections) of any one of the districts.

McClure v. City of Texarkana

435 S.W.2d 599 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 5, 1968

McClure sought a judgment compelling the taxing units “to recognize the immunity from taxation of the property herein described, and require that said exemption from taxation be granted to the cross-plaintiff as authorized … However, if her conclusory statements should be regarded as sufficient to establish that the school was an institution that might qualify for tax exemption, the point of error could not for that reason be sustained as the

Warren v. Hartnett

561 S.W.2d 860 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Dec 28, 1977

Contestants argue that the two phrases “if enny thank (anything) hapen (happens) to me when I have my teeth pull (pulled)” and “I (am) goin (going) on plan (plane) to morrow to San ton (San Antonio) (If) (something) happens . . .establish … This conditional language clearly related to the will’s effectiveness, and there was no need to resort to rules of construction.

Schwab v. Ranger Insurance Company

438 S.W.2d 121 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 13, 1969

Instead, he sought to establish that Paskie had converted the plane to his own use contrary to his instructions. … It was then flown back to Houston by a qualified pilot with Paskie aboard as the co-pilot.

Mitchell v. Dillingham

22 S.W.2d 971 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Dec 20, 1929

The trial court qualified the bill as follows: “This bill of exceptions No. 1 is qualified with the statement that the testimony was admitted in reply to and as rebuttal to the deposition of the witness Hanley, offered by … the plaintiff.”- Clearly a portion of this evidence was admissible.

Kimberly v. Morris

10 Tex. Civ. App. 592 · Court of Appeals of Texas · May 1, 1895

Hall, 91 United States, 355, such a right is clearly recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States. … It is in the nature of a legislative right vested by the Constitution and laws of the State in the qualified voters of the counties, to be put into action at the instance of a specified number of such qualified voters.

Kerr v. State

921 S.W.2d 498 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Apr 25, 1996

These cases also state, however, that if the confession is corroborated by some evidence, the confession may be used to establish the corpus delicti or a part of it. … Emerson clearly stated: For testimony concerning a defendant’s performance on the HGN test to be admissible, it must be shown that the witness testifying is qualified as an expert on the HGN test, specifically concerning

Houston Press Co. v. Smith

3 S.W.2d 900 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 10, 1928

by the grand jury so that she could testify against Warren, and that Smith blocked the granting of such immunity. … Such charges are clearly libelous per se, and, unless proven to be true, are sufficient upon which to base an action for libel.

IMC Fertilizer, Inc. v. O'Neill

846 S.W.2d 590 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 28, 1993

A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if “it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” Id. at 839 (quoting Johnson v. … The relator must establish that the trial court could reasonably have reached but one decision. Id. at 840.