Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,255 results
1.48s
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jul 21, 2005
available; (2) the Legislature cannot impede access to the courts through unreasonable financial barriers; and (3) meaningful remedies must be afforded, 'so that the legislature may not abrogate the right to assert a well-established … With the knowledge that each of these previous lawsuits has been dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, that appellees are generally entitled to sovereign immunity, and that the bonds are generally incontestible at this point
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Apr 18, 2013
Spin-Line Co., 430 S.W.2d 360, 364 (Tex. 1968) (well settled that if an acceptance changes or qualifies the terms of the offer, the offer is rejected); see also King v. Bishop, 879 S.W.2d 222, 223-24 (Tex. App. … The attorneys’ fees awarded to UFCU for this appeal clearly exceed the upper amounts to which its attorney testified.
Cited 0 timesPublishedAllen Chadwick Burbage v. W. Kirk Burbage and Burbage Funeral Home
447 S.W.3d 291 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 21, 2011
A statement qualifies for the common-interest privilege only if it is made “for the purpose of protecting the common interest.” Grant v. Stop-N-Go Mkt. of Tex., Inc., 994 S.W.2d 867, 874 (Tex.App. … Clearly, these statements (at a minimum) were not subject to the common-interest privilege. See id.
Cited 3 timesPublishedHealthTronics, Inc. v. Lisa Laser USA, Inc. and Lisa Laser Products, OHG
382 S.W.3d 567 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 31, 2012
As a result, the court concluded that “the award was not clearly wrong; the superior court did not abuse its discretion.” Id. … In the usual Texas case, the attorney affidavits would be subject to the two-part test that governs the admissibility of expert testimony, i.e., (1) the expert must be qualified; and (2) the testimony must be relevant and
Cited 42 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jun 4, 2015
Humphries is not the owner, and is not qualified as a tractor salesman, or anyone who would have particular knowledge of any specific piece of farm equipment. … For purposes of determining whether minimum jurisdictional amount for felony theft has been met, fair market value of stolen property must be established if testimony concerning value is given by someone other than owner
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Apr 30, 2015
(a) The Multistate Tax Commission is hereby established. … Two factors compacts are immune to unilateral weigh heavily in this conclusion.
Cited 0 timesPublished174 S.W.3d 889 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Sep 30, 2005
Consistent with these limitations, the State, when delegating general eminent domain power to home-rule municipalities like the City of Austin, qualified the grant of power to the “exercise [of] the right of eminent domain … As the Waco court acknowledged, Gardner is clearly distinguishable from "the conventional condemnation case” — it involved property already within the city’s possession under an easement and where the city was already at
Cited 62 timesPublishedChristopher Jaroszewicz v. Texas Department of Public Safety
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 22, 2015
substantial evidence considering the reliable and probative evidence in the record as a whole; or (F) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly … App. 2004) (“Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing the guilt of an actor. Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to establish guilt.”)
Cited 0 timesPublishedNancy Marie Peck v. Wayne Cody Peck
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jul 15, 2016
A fact-finder’s failure to find a fact is against the “great weight and preponderance” of the evidence when it is “clearly wrong and unjust.” Id. … 816–17, 819–20, 822 (legal sufficiency); Golden Eagle Archery, Inc., 116 S.W.3d at 761 (factual sufficiency). 18 Further, it was undisputed that this delay had been calculated to ensure that Nancy would qualify
Cited 0 timesPublishedBarry Michael Smith, Jr. v. State
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jun 16, 2011
Supplemental Income Benefits An employee must have an impairment rating of fifteen percent or more to qualify for supplemental income benefits. Tex. Lab. Code § 408.142. … Combined 13 with Earle’s statement that Carolyn was fully disabled by a 1998 injury, Gordon’s opinion clearly constitutes more than a scintilla of evidence that Carolyn
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jul 19, 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 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jul 19, 2007
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) · Nov 7, 2014
App. 1996) (en banc) (burden of establishing legitimate expectation of privacy rests on defendant). … Such a ruling is not clearly erroneous if it is supported by the record. Vargas v. State, 838 S.W.2d 552, 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (en banc).
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jun 16, 2011
Supplemental Income Benefits An employee must have an impairment rating of fifteen percent or more to qualify for supplemental income benefits. Tex. Lab. Code § 408.142. … Combined with Earle's statement that Carolyn was fully disabled by a 1998 injury, Gordon's opinion clearly constitutes more than a scintilla of evidence that Carolyn's hole-punching accident did not cause any disability between
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Feb 13, 2015
Said factors, weighing against the corrupting effect of the pre-trial identification procedures, clearly establishes constitutional error. The five (5) factors are as follows: (1). … Consequently, the State Court's decision in denying the applicant's relief sought was contrary to clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court. Williams v.
Cited 0 timesPublished952 S.W.2d 59 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jul 24, 1997
Right to qualified jury The Texas Constitution provides: The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. … The application of article 44.46 to appellant in this cause clearly does not violate the terms of article XVI, section 2.
Vacated on other grounds by Hernandez v. State, 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2 (1998)Cited 34 timesPublishedPaul Trowe v. Joseph Johnson & Skydive Lone Star
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 17, 2021
Whether a statement qualifies as defamatory per se is generally a question of law. In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 596; Texas Disposal Sys. Landfill, Inc. v. Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc., 219 S.W.3d 563, 581 (Tex. … with no substantiating proof; (2) Skydive Lonestar’s USPA affiliation and ratings were revoked when this is not true; (3) my USPA affiliation and ratings were revoked for not being safe when the USPA minutes clearly
Cited 0 timesPublishedSouthwestern Public Service Co. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas
962 S.W.2d 207 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jan 29, 1998
At the request of Commission staff, Southwestern ran two modeled scenarios, establishing a benchmark and a change case. 39(c). … It is arguable, therefore, that this fuel reconciliation proceeding was initiated under section 2.051 and that it therefore qualifies as a ratemaking proceeding for that reason alone.
Cited 107 timesPublishedMark Hackett v. Littlepage & Booth Littlepage & Associates, P.C. And Michles & Booth, P.A.
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Feb 20, 2009
Under these well-established standards, we review Dr. Lowenthal’s deposition testimony and affidavits. Dr. … (medical malpractice case in which court applied general reliability requirements as established in Robinson and not Havner analysis).
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jan 22, 2026
DISCUSSION Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and will issue only if the lower court has clearly abused its discretion and the relators have no other adequate remedy by appeal. In re H.E.B. … As the parties resisting discovery, Relators carried their burden of establishing a prima facie showing of privilege through these declarations because they establish the factual basis for the attorney-client privilege
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna