Case law

Robert Holmes, Jr. v. Tracy Nannette Holmes

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Oct 5, 2010

In April 2008, Holmes filed a motion for genetic testing of the children, which established Holmes's paternity as to the four children. … --For purposes of this subtitle, the term "dependent" means-- (1) a qualifying child . . . . . . . (c) Qualifying child.--For purposes of this section-- (1) In general.

State v. Jimmie Dale White

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 19, 2010

The State challenges whether there is evidence to establish either requirement. … And clearly these guys were otherwise occupied. But there has to be a limit to this practically speaking.” 11 or for other improper purpose.” Crouch, 84 F.3d at 1514.

Charles Mincy v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 18, 2000

Moreover, if the imprisonment evidences a "voluntary, deliberate and conscious course of conduct, it qualifies as conduct that endangers the emotional well-being of the child." Id. … Clearly, in this case, Mincy's incarceration is a factor that the jury could properly consider in reaching its verdict.

Phillips v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services

25 S.W.3d 348 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jul 27, 2000

He cannot swear to be the biological father but claim to be immune from termination. … The Department also established that terminating the rights of both parents was in the best interests of the children.

American National Insurance Co. v. Paul

927 S.W.2d 239 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 14, 1996

During the past three years I have not received any medical care or treatment for heart, lungs, or respiratory system, brain or nervous system, Immune Deficiency Disorder, AIDS or the AIDS Related Complex (ARC), or cancer … This portion of the contract expressly establishes the policy’s limitations and exclusions and contains the following condition precedent: “[I]f your age is misstated and you have reachéd age 66 on the Effective Date, no

State v. Jimmie Dale White

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 19, 2010

The State challenges whether there is evidence to establish either requirement. … And clearly these guys were otherwise occupied. But there has to be a limit to this practically speaking." 9. See Tex. Const. art. I, § 9.

Reliant Energy, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission

101 S.W.3d 129 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Mar 20, 2003

At that time, it was thought that electric utilities were natural monopolies, immune from the normal forces of competition. … In truth, only one component of a vertically integrated electric utility immunizes it from the normal forces of competition — its transmission and distribution infrastructure.

Paul Douglas Archer v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 17, 2007

I don't believe it qualifies as a learned treatise. The Court: Overruled. Q: So if you can go ahead and tell us about the study you're referring to from Doctor Kellogg. A: Okay. … Salley was qualified by her knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education as an expert witness in the field of child sexual abuse. See Tex. R. Evid. 702.

Paul Douglas Archer v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 17, 2007

If the facts established that the defendant is guilty, can you consider probation? … (emphasis added), which clearly contemplates consecutive sentencing for multiple offenses committed against multiple victims. See Dale v. State, 170 S.W.3d 797, 800–01 (Tex. App.

In Re Fluor Enterprises, Inc.

186 S.W.3d 639 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Feb 27, 2006

Thus, it qualifies as a “tag-along case” under the MDL rules. … 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, or if it clearly fails to correctly analyze or apply the law.

Eduardo Mora-Hernandez v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Nov 9, 2016

55 “[T]he proponent must ‘establish that the expert has ‘knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education’ regarding the specific issue before the court which would qualify the expert to give an opinion on that particular … On this record, we cannot conclude that the district court clearly abused its discretion in finding that Hargis’s qualifications were sufficient to “help the trier of fact to understand the evidence” presented by the State

In Re K.B. v. the State of Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jan 5, 2024

Arguments addressing the right to the effective assistance of counsel clearly implicate the Due Process Clause. See C.S.F. v. … It is well established that “[p]roceedings to terminate the parent-child 10 relationship implicate rights of constitutional magnitude that qualify for heightened judicial

Edwin Glen Bigon v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Oct 4, 2006

10  “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified … At trial, appellant objected that the records were hearsay, not authentic, and there was no chain of custody established for the records.

Melissa Gates v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services and Commissioner Henry Whitman, Jr.

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Nov 30, 2015

Ex J is referenced in the document (CR 174) but not clearly labeled as an exhibit. It follows Ex. I, but does not have its own label as Ex. J. The same documents comprise Ex. … This Exhibit J is not only referenced in the document (CR 264), but clearly marked as Exhibit J (CR 300-351) among the other exhibits.

A.G.E., Inc. v. Buford

105 S.W.3d 667 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 15, 2003

However, as with all offers, the power of acceptance can be terminated by lapse of time or by conduct of the offeree clearly inconsistent with an intention to purchase. … -Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no writ) (stating that owner was qualified to testify to the fair market rental value of her property).

Edwin Glen Bigon v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Oct 4, 2006

"If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training … At trial, appellant objected that the records were hearsay, not authentic, and there was no chain of custody established for the records.

Central Power and Light Co. v. Sharp

919 S.W.2d 485 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 1, 1996

In a tax refund action, the Tax Code provides the exclusive waiver of sovereign immunity. Hammerman & Gainer, Inc. v. Bullock, 791 S.W.2d 330, 331 (Tex.App.—Austin 1990, no writ); Bullock v. … —Austin 1977, writ denied) (legislature may delegate authority to establish rules to carry out express purpose of law in question).

Roger Doyle Wood v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Oct 7, 2009

Bodily injury assault is included within the alleged offense because it is established by proof of the same or less than all the facts required to establish the commission of the alleged offense and because it differs from … the alleged offense only in the respect that a less serious injury to the same person suffices to establish its commission.

Gregory John Mayhue, A/K/A Farrell v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 7, 1998

According to Mayhue, the boyfriend cooperated with the police in exchange for immunity from prosecution. … s boyfriend immunity from prosecution and he fully cooperated with the State at trial. He testified at trial that the State had granted him immunity.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. Sierra Club and Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Nov 22, 2022

. § 552.321 (waiving sovereign immunity for requestor seeking mandamus to compel disclosure). The Sierra Club and the Commission filed competing motions for summary judgment. … The privilege, however, is qualified; it is not absolute. Federal Trade Comm’n v. Warner Commc’ns Inc., 742 F.2d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 1984).