Case law

Central Power and Light Company v. John Sharp, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Dan Morales, Attorney General of the State of Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Apr 3, 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).

the City of San Marcos, Texas v. Sam Brannon, Communities for Thriving Water-Flouride Free San Marcos, and Kathleen O'Connell

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

The number of these qualified signatures exceeded the requirements of section 9.004(a). Five percent of the number of qualified San Marcos voters is approximately 964. 36. … The number of these qualified signatures exceeded the requirements of section 9.004(a). Five percent of the number of qualified San Marcos voters is approximately 964. 36.

Reza Seyed Alaghehband v. Fariba Abolbaghaei

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 1, 2003

Appellant has not shown that the trial court clearly abused its discretion in finding appellee eligible for spousal maintenance. … Appellant claimed he is obligated to pay his father $3,500 a month, but the evidence did not clearly establish that the repayment plan was so structured.

Reza Seyed Alaghehband v. Fariba Abolbaghaei

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 1, 2003

Appellant contends that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court's determinations that (1) appellee qualified for spousal maintenance, and (2) $800 was necessary to provide for appellee's … Appellant claimed he is obligated to pay his father $3,500 a month, but the evidence did not clearly establish that the repayment plan was so structured.

Ramirez v. State

96 S.W.3d 386 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jan 29, 2003

Counsel established that D.C. had lied to the grand jury about O.J. … In the instant case, the State clearly “used” the testimony. First, the State on direct examination clearly permitted D.C. to testify without correction that she was not looking for money but seeking justice.

Edeltraud Amalia Ross v. James Glenn Ross

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 8, 1996

The letter clearly indicates that James wanted to be reimbursed for services he had performed earlier in 1990 without Trudy's knowledge. … The letter clearly indicates that James wanted to be reimbursed for services he had performed earlier in 1990 without Trudy's knowledge.

Kathleen Hagan N/K/A Kathleen Horne v. David Pauszek

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 26, 2005

The summary judgment evidence clearly raises an issue of material fact as to the location and scope of the easement. … fulfilled or had occurred; Hagan specifically pleaded in her first amended answer and counterclaim that the inclusion of the Pauszek property in the Grant was a condition precedent and that the Pauszek property did not qualify

Kathleen Hagan N/K/A Kathleen Horne v. David Pauszek

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 26, 2005

The summary judgment evidence clearly raises an issue of material fact as to the location and scope of the easement. … fulfilled or had occurred; Hagan specifically pleaded in her first amended answer and counterclaim that the inclusion of the Pauszek property in the Grant was a condition precedent and that the Pauszek property did not qualify

Kenneth Eubanks and Irene Eubanks v. Dyck-O'Neal, Inc.

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jun 29, 1994

The note in the instant case qualifies as a negotiable instrument under section 3.104. … Dyck-O'Neal presented the following evidence to establish its ownership of the note.

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. CGG Veritas Services (U.S.), Inc.

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Apr 20, 2015

It is well established that where exemption eligibility is at issue, “all doubts are resolved in favor of the taxing authority and against the claimant,” and the claimant must “clearly show that it comes within the statutory … Simply stated, the burden of proof is on the claimant to clearly show that it comes within the statutory exemption. AHF-Arbors at Huntsville I, LLC v. Walker Cnty.

Bosque River Coalition v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 2, 2011

An interest common to members of the general public does not qualify as a personal justiciable interest. Tex. Water Code Ann. § 5.115(a) (West 2008). … An interest common to members of the general public does not qualify as a personal justiciable interest.”), .203(a) (2011) (Tex. Comm’n Envtl. Quality, Determination of Affected Person) (same).

William M. Sawyer and Sharyn Sawyer v. Stephanie Antoinette Valderaz

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Oct 4, 2001

so weak as to make the judgment clearly wrong and manifestly unjust. … Their own lay testimony was not competent to establish causation between Valderaz's negligence and the Sawyers' more unusual complaints.

Phillip Kothmann v. the F. Vosburg Hall and Marylou Hall Children's Crisis Foundation

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jul 15, 2010

We examine the nature of that agreement to determine whether the Foundation established that the agreement is governed by and barred by the statute of frauds. … She testified that she kept the Foundation's parameters--including the age limit--in mind when evaluating applications and agreed that approval of a child who was not qualified would be reckless.

Phillip Kothmann v. the F. Vosburg Hall and Marylou Hall Children's Crisis Foundation

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jul 15, 2010

An affirmative defense is a denial of the plaintiff’s right to judgment even if the plaintiff establishes every allegation in its pleadings. Kothmann v. … She testified that she kept the Foundation’s parameters—including the age limit—in mind when evaluating applications and agreed that approval of a child who was not qualified would be reckless.

Bexar Metropolitan Water District, Juan and Luann Rivara, and Joseph and Dawn Fiorino v. City of San Antonio, Acting by and Through the San Antonio Water System

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jun 29, 2007

SAWS is not required to establish standing under the voting-rights act because it has not presented a claim under that statute. … In a constitutional challenge, "the courts should uphold a statute as valid unless it is clearly unconstitutional." Koy v. Schneider , 221 S.W. 880, 888 (Tex. 1920).

Syed Kazmi v. Syeda Kazmi

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Nov 17, 2023

or can be credited with such qualifying quarters.” 8 U.S.C. § 1183a(a)(2), (3)(A). … Wash. 2017) (“The federal law underlying the I–864 Affidavit clearly specifies the instances in which the support obligation can be avoided . . . .

Martha Flores, Individually and A/N/F of Alicia Flores, Teresa K. Knobles, Consuelo Walker, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Consuelo Flores, and Manuel Flores v. Daryl Eakin, M.D. Lone Star Oncology Consultants, L.L.P. And Round Rock Hospital, Inc. D/B/A Round Rock Hospital

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 22, 2008

Clearly, that is not the case. A trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Helena Chem. Co. v. Wilkins , 47 S.W.3d 486, 499 (Tex. 2001). … Expert testimony is admissible if (1) the expert is qualified, and (2) the testimony is relevant and based on a reliable foundation. Wilkins , 47 S.W.3d at 499 ; Robinson , 923 S.W.2d at 556 .

in Re Fluor Enterprises, Inc. Fluor Corporation Fluor Constructors International, Inc. And Fluor Texas, Inc.

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.

in Re Fluor Enterprises, Inc. Fluor Corporation Fluor Constructors International, Inc. And Fluor Texas, Inc.

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.

Bosque River Coalition v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 2, 2011

An interest common to members of the general public does not qualify as a personal justiciable interest. Tex. Water Code Ann. § 5.115 (a) (West 2008). The Commission's pertinent rules incorporate the same definition. … An interest common to members of the general public does not qualify as a personal justiciable interest."), .203(a) (2011) (Tex. Comm'n Envtl. Quality, Determination of Affected Person) (same).