Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,255 results
1.01s
Income Administrator Services, Inc. v. Samuel E. Payne
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Feb 14, 2002
Plaintiff complied with this request because he believed that Defendant, his broker, was more experienced and qualified in real estate transactions. … Both the motion and order are clearly based on the critical allegation .
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jul 10, 2015
that (1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion and (2) there is no adequate remedy by appeal. … In determining that it was not, the supreme court clarified that, although a claim based on departure from safety standards “need not be directly related to the provision of health care” in order to qualify as a health
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jun 28, 2007
Subsection ( l ) establishes a standard of proof for any motion challenging the sufficiency of an expert report: whether the report represents "an objective good faith effort to comply with the definition of an expert report … Adame's report is clearly "no report." Its defects include the types of wholesale omissions identified in Jernigan and Marichalar , and Dr.
Cited 0 timesPublishedA.G.E., Inc./Henderson L. Buford, III v. Henderson L. Buford, III/A.G.E., Inc.
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Mar 20, 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. … App.C Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no writ) (stating that owner was qualified to testify to the fair market rental value of her property).
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jan 8, 2010
Current Rule 153.22 is clearly consistent with the plain language of the constitution as it is currently written. … ACORN does, however, concede in its reply brief that true "discount points," charged by the lender in exchange for a lower interest rate, should qualify as interest.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jun 28, 2007
Subsection (l) establishes a standard of proof for any motion challenging the sufficiency of an expert report: whether the report represents “an objective good faith effort to comply with the definition of an expert report … Adame’s report is clearly “no report.” Its defects include the types of wholesale omissions identified in Jernigan and Marichalar, and Dr.
Cited 0 timesPublishedJonathan Alexander Vargas v. State
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jan 8, 2010
TBA and the Commissions, on the other exchange for a lower interest rate, should qualify as interest. … Current Rule 153.22. 17 Current Rule 153.22 is clearly consistent with the plain language of the constitution as it is currently written.
Cited 0 timesPublished208 S.W.3d 554 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Sep 13, 2006
In the instant case, there is no testimony from a qualified witness that the telephone bill at issue was a printout of computer self-generated data. … If Westmoland had been shown to be a party to Ragland’s murder and thus an accomplice witness, there clearly was other evidence connecting appellant to the offense — Ragland’s body was found in appellant’s bedroom — and thus
Cited 9 timesPublishedWilliam L. Lindig and Peggy L. Lindig v. City of Johnson City
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Nov 14, 2012
the fee structure applicable to residential remodeling 7 jobs—either on its face or as it has been applied to them—because (1) the fee ordinance lacks a fee structure clearly … “It is established that a law fails to meet the standards of due process if it is so vague and standardless as to leave a governing body free to decide, without any legally fixed guidelines, what is prohibited in each particular
Cited 0 timesPublishedWilliam L. Lindig and Peggy L. Lindig v. City of Johnson City
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Nov 14, 2012
section 06-015 is unconstitutionally vague with regard to the fee structure applicable to residential remodeling jobs--either on its face or as it has been applied to them--because (1) the fee ordinance lacks a fee structure clearly … "It is established that a law fails to meet the standards of due process if it is so vague and standardless as to leave a governing body free to decide, without any legally fixed guidelines, what is prohibited in each particular
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 10, 2015
IMMUNITY. … EXPERT IMMUNITY.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Feb 6, 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.
Cited 0 timesPublishedA.G.E., Inc./Henderson L. Buford, III v. Henderson L. Buford, III/A.G.E., Inc.
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Mar 20, 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. … Buford established below that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. American Tobacco Co. , 951 S.W.2d at 425 .
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jun 1, 2007
default the summary judgment proof necessary to establish the movant’s right. … A summary judgment motion must clearly set forth its grounds and meet the rule’s requirements. Binur, 135 S.W.3d at 651.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 26, 1999
The nonaccomplice evidence need not be sufficient in itself to establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. … They should also "detail the evidence relevant to the issue in consideration and clearly state why the jury's finding is factually insufficient . . . as to be manifestly unjust; why it shocks the conscience; or clearly demonstrates
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Nov 19, 2019
Separate and discrete instances of abuse We first address Young’s contention that Yeager did not testify to a separate and discrete instance of abuse so as to qualify as a second outcry witness. … It is not relevant to the proceedings in this case, nor should you consider it in any way to establish guilt or innocence, or allude to it any further in consideration of your verdict. Do you understand?
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jan 5, 2017
Article 1, 17 (160)- To establish an inverse condenmation claim, a property owner must establish that(!) … or abrogate sovereign immunity."
Cited 0 timesPublishedWilliam Ethridge Hill, Jr. v. State
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 30, 2002
Rule 803(3) clearly provides that testimony as to the deceased's plan and then existing state of mind is admissible. See id. … We presume the correctness of the trial court's ruling, and the burden rests on the appellant to establish the contrary. State v. Gill , 967 S.W.2d 540, 541 (Tex. App.--Austin 1998, pet. ref'd).
Cited 0 timesPublishedMargaret Torres Wilson and Joe Bob Wilson v. Austin Nursing Center, Inc.
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Sep 26, 2002
DISCUSSION Jurisdiction The district court found that the Center=s motion to dismiss qualified as a pending motion for sanctions under Rule 162. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 162. … These standards are not within the common knowledge of lay-people; therefore, a medical expert is necessary to establish a claim based on the breach of such a standard. Id.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jun 1, 2007
A summary judgment motion must clearly set forth its grounds and meet the rule's requirements. Binur , 135 S.W.3d at 651 . … In addition, the declaration that "neither law nor facts supports plaintiff's attempt to set aside the transaction on the basis of" unilateral mistake is deficient to qualify as a 166a(i) motion because the motion fails to
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna