Case law

Routledge v. State

834 S.W.2d 452 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 4, 1992

This evidence is clearly sufficient to establish that Rout-ledge exercised control over the vehicle. … The evidence is clearly sufficient to establish an affirmative .link between Routledge and the amphetamine. All reasonable hypotheses have been excluded. Routledge’s third point of error is overruled.

Gathright v. Riggs

344 S.W.2d 757 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Mar 16, 1961

That rule, however, is qualified by the requirements, among others, that such subsequent suit “involve the same subject matter”, and the same parties. Royal Petroleum Corp. v. … We think the judgment of the trial court is clearly correct. Affirmed.

Kaufman County v. McGaughey

3 Tex. Civ. App. 655 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 15, 1893

Court-jurisdiction to issue and enforce remedial writs, which we do not decide, there is no such relation existing between the Chief Executive and the Commissioner of the General Land Office as will entitle the latter to like immunity … as thus established.

State v. Ingram

502 S.W.2d 595 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 28, 1973

The State of Texas, acting through the Grievance Committee for District 16-A of the State Bar of Texas, has appealed and contends that as the proof and the Court’s own findings in its judgment established that all elements … The Supreme Court has given a qualified approval of that opinion by its notation, “writ refused, no reversible error,” and we fail to see any significant distinction between the facts of these two cases.

Taylor v. United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry

337 S.W.2d 421 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 17, 1960

Benson, 1890, 76 Tex. 552 , 13 S.W. 379 , it seems that one of the decisions which most fully and clearly states the existing Texas rule is St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. of Texas v. … The objective of the rule is clearly distinguishable.

Bright v. City of Corpus Christi

172 S.W.2d 763 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 9, 1943

In other words, the City had established a dumping ground for its garbage. This was clearly a violation of Article 696a, supra. The facts in the case at bar are very different. … Burns was shown to be well qualified and experienced in such matters. The burden was upon appellants to show that there was no reasonable basis for the selection of the site made by the city. This they failed to do.

Dempsey v. Beaumont Hospital, Inc.

38 S.W.3d 287 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 22, 2001

Essentially, the Hospital argues that in a civil case if a verdict is rendered by at least ten qualified jurors, the error will always be harmless. … The reversible error occurred when the trial court denied the mistrial and that error was clearly preserved.

Houston Lighting & Power Co. v. Daily

291 S.W. 317 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 12, 1927

Such admission necessarily excludes any question of the regularity of the condemnation proceedings prior to the time the admission was presented, and was clearly sufficient to entitle appellees to conduct the trial as plaintiffs … To so hold in regard to this charge would, in our opinion, be in utter disregard of rule 62a prescribed by the Supreme Court for Courts of Civil Appeals, and would abrogate and destroy the long-established and salutary doctrine

Dallas National Insurance Co. v. Morales

394 S.W.3d 826 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Feb 6, 2013

At trial, Morales testified that he looked for work during the qualifying period of the fifth quarter. … Morales documented his job searches for the qualifying period.

Coody v. State

812 S.W.2d 631 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jul 25, 1991

In Evans , the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals clearly established the rationale underlying admission of impeachment evidence by its adoption of Davis : We cannot speculate as to whether the jury, as sole judge of the credibility … unimportant that a wrongful act providing grounds for impeachment is collateral to the charged offense when the reason for impeachment is to show a jury that the State’s key witness may have been enjoying a promise of leniency or immunity

Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Good

151 S.W. 617 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 7, 1912

It is clearly apparent that the amount claimed against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company does not exceed $2,000, and no judgment could have been rendered against it for more than that sum; and the court therefore did not … Counsel in their brief concede that negligence in transportation •ordinarily cannot be established by comparison, and the fact that one shipment of cattle made the trip safely while another shipment arrived in an injured

Sweeney v. Cross

476 S.W.2d 464 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jan 5, 1972

A purchase price was never established because I wanted to see how many customers I held before Mr. Cross would have to pay. I did not want him to pay for something he did not get.” … Clearly, the basic elements of a binding contract were lacking. It is evident that essential terms of the agreement were left open for future negotiations.

McWherter v. State

624 S.W.2d 712 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 29, 1981

To qualify as a witness, testimony must demonstrate she/he knows the defendant’s general reputation in the community. *715 Beecham v. State, supra, at 590. … The court did not make separate findings of fact and conclusions of law as to voluntariness but these are not necessary where the court’s conclusions clearly and unmistakably appear from the record. Smith v.

Berry v. City of Fort Worth

110 S.W.2d 95 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 22, 1937

protection of the laws in violation of the guaranty of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution and art. 1, §§ 3 and 19, of our State Constitution, the latter section including within its protection “privileges or immunities … Worth is operating as a home rule city under provisions of article 11, § 5, of the State Constitution, reading in part as follows: “Cities having more than five thousand (5000) inhabitants may, by a majority vote of the qualified

Chrysler-Plymouth City, Inc. v. Guerrero

620 S.W.2d 700 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Jun 3, 1981

is well settled that the qualifications of a witness to testify on the question of value is primarily to be determined by the trial court, and the ruling of the trial judge will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is so clearly … The burden of proof when establishing an alleged affirmative defense is on the party asserting it. Harris v. Rowe, 593 S.W.2d 303 (Tex.1980); Anderson Development Co. v.

Horsley-Layman v. Angeles

90 S.W.3d 926 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Oct 31, 2002

Bux-ton as an expert witness and to strike his report as “non-qualifying” because it failed to state specific acts of negligence, or establish any causal relationship between the negligence and the injury, harm, or damages … Buxton’s report clearly represents a good faith effort to provide a fair summary of his opinions on each of the elements identified in section 13.01(r)(6). Both the trial court and Dr.

Tennessee Gas Transmission Co. v. Dishman

303 S.W.2d 471 · Court of Appeals of Texas · May 2, 1957

It says that the undisputed evidence fails to establish that the entire *475 ■acreage outside of the strip itself was reduced in market value, but on the contrary established that none of said acreage suffered any consequential … The issues clearly inquire of the jury the market values of the lands before and after taking on an average per acre basis.

Brady v. Hidalgo County Water Control & Improvement Dist. No. 12

56 S.W.2d 298 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Dec 14, 1932

either of the three claimed employments of appellant were necessary for the proper handling of the business and the operation of the district, its plant and/or improvements, and failed to show that appellant was legally qualified … All such matters should have been excluded from evidence, since appellant was responsible for none of them, while their admission was clearly prejudicial to him, and no doubt induced the groundless findings of the jury.

Lampasas Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Lewis

558 S.W.2d 913 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Nov 10, 1977

Next, Appellant complains that the Commissioner erred in admitting into evidence Southern Savings’s Exhibits Numbers 4 and 5, on the ground that such exhibits are incompetent hearsay, and were not authenticated by a qualified … Boss exhibited complete familiarity with the information and exhibits, and was clearly qualified as a witness insofar as the compilation and summary were concerned.

Ruiz v. State

540 S.W.2d 809 · Court of Appeals of Texas · Aug 30, 1976

The appellant Ruiz, states that the judgment is clearly based on a legal theory contrary to the expressed provisions of the Texas Constitution and is, therefore, erroneous. … Ruiz stated that he did not have any voice in establishing policy and his duties were only to carry out the policies set up by the local school board and school administrators.