Case law

In Re Kona Coast Venture, LTD; Kona Coast, LLC; William Korioth; WTK Development, LLC; Guadalupe 306, LP; Guadalupe 306 GP, LLC; Oxbow Land Partners, LLC; Hideout on the Horseshoe, LLC; Whitewater Sports, LLC; And TBOTG Development, Inc. v. the State of Texas

Texas 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

Mark 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).

Mark Hackett v. Littlepage & Booth Littlepage & Associates, P.C. And Michles & Booth, P.A.

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jan 16, 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).

Mark D. Bogar, M.D. v. Dolores G. Esparza, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Katherine G. Guerrero, Fernando Guerrero Sofia G. Butschy Gilberto Guerrero Antonio Guerrero Rosie G. Garza Benito Guerrero Josey G. Selvera and Frances G. Faz

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 16, 2008

Karsh, as a radiologist, was not qualified to render opinions on a urologist's standard of care. … In contrast, section 74.351's expert report requirement establishes a threshold over which a claimant must proceed to continue a lawsuit; it does not establish a requirement for recovery.

Scaggs v. State

18 S.W.3d 277 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jun 22, 2000

I was somewhat surprised that she was selected, but throughout the testimony and deliberation my opinion changed and I felt that she was qualified. … On appeal, the Ford court held “the record reflects that appellant was clearly objecting ‘to any and all impact evidence’ as ‘to all witnesses testifying to such.

David McDonald v. Diana Dankworth

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 5, 2006

However, Dankworth later qualified these assertions by claiming that, even while looking away, she could still see McDonald’s truck “in the corner of my eye.” … In light of this testimony, we cannot say that the evidence is so one-sided that the jury’s contributory negligence finding is clearly wrong or manifestly unjust.

Hollingsworth v. State

15 S.W.3d 586 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Mar 30, 2000

When appellant spit out the cocaine, he clearly intended to abandon it, and appellant does not claim otherwise. The only issue is whether his decision to abandon the property was the result of police misconduct. … [I]f the State holds the burden of proof in this case, why did they ignore a test that would have established, conclusively established, guilt or innocence. I submit to you that is an important question.

Mark Hackett v. Littlepage & Booth Littlepage & Associates, P.C. And Michles & Booth, P.A.

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jan 16, 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).

Mark D. Bogar, M.D. v. Dolores G. Esparza, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Katherine G. Guerrero, Fernando Guerrero Sofia G. Butschy Gilberto Guerrero Antonio Guerrero Rosie G. Garza Benito Guerrero Josey G. Selvera and Frances G. Faz

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 16, 2008

Karsh, as a radiologist, was not qualified to render opinions on a urologist’s standard of care. … In contrast, section 74.351’s expert report requirement establishes a threshold over which a claimant must proceed to continue a lawsuit; it does not establish a requirement for recovery.

Richard Hebert and Janet Hebert v. Timothy E. Hopkins, M.D., and Shannon Clinic

395 S.W.3d 884 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Mar 1, 2013

The standards governing the contents of the expert report or reports required by chapter 74 are well established. … Low Income Women of Tex., 95 S.W.3d 253, 264 (Tex.2002) (“The restriction clearly serves [the act’s] purposes, and it is not for us to second-guess the Legislature’s policy choices.”).

L. F. Clark Annie Rosalis Alice Tabor And Joyce Bailey v. City of San Antonio, Acting by and Through Its Agent, City Public Service Board of San Antonio And Milton Mundine

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Mar 8, 1995

CPSB contends that it qualifies as a bona fide purchaser for value (1) and that any interest of Bessie's heirs was extinguished upon CPSB's purchase of the land. … After citing several Texas Supreme Court cases, Nowlin clearly stated that CPSB "acquired the legal and equitable title to the Property free and clear of and from any enforceable claim, right, title or interest of your clients

Myron Bishop Head v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Apr 24, 2013

Thus, the district court would not have clearly erred in finding that this explanation for the strike was genuine. … night and at around the same time as the charged offense, the evidence had a tendency to impart “information essential to understanding the context and circumstances of the events” surrounding the charged offense and thus qualified

Brett Bray, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Motor Vehicle Division of the Texas Department of Transportation And Gulf States Toyota, Inc.// Tejas Toyota, Inc. v. Tejas Toyota, Inc.// Cross- Brett Bray, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Motor Vehicle Division of the Texas Department of Transportation And Gulf States Toyota, Inc.

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Feb 2, 2012

The sole impediment to his qualifying under the program was the inability of Tejas to achieve 100% sales efficiency. … The textual distinctions between these adjacent statutory provisions is significant and clearly indicates that the legislature intended for one provision to be discretionary and the other to be mandatory.

Bruno Trevino v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 9, 2013

A trial court abuses its discretion only when its decision “is so clearly wrong as to lie outside that zone within which reasonable persons might disagree.” McDonald v. State, 179 S.W.3d 571, 576 (Tex. Crim. … However, “[i]n order to qualify for admission under Rule 613(a), the court must be persuaded that the statements are indeed inconsistent.” Lopez v. State, 86 S.W.3d 228, 230 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Baldree v.

Joseph Duran v. the State of Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jun 23, 2023

be sufficient” on its own “to establish guilt.” … Accordingly, “we reverse only when the trial judge’s decision was so clearly wrong as to lie outside that zone within which reasonable persons might disagree.” Gonzalez v. State, 304 S.W.3d 838, 842 (Tex. Crim.

Brett Bray, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Motor Vehicle Division of the Texas Department of Transportation And Gulf States Toyota, Inc.// Tejas Toyota, Inc. v. Tejas Toyota, Inc.// Cross- Brett Bray, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Motor Vehicle Division of the Texas Department of Transportation And Gulf States Toyota, Inc.

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Feb 2, 2012

The sole impediment to his qualifying under the program was the inability of Tejas to achieve 100% sales efficiency. … The textual distinctions between these adjacent statutory provisions is significant and clearly indicates that the legislature intended for one provision to be discretionary and the other to be mandatory.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. Exxon Mobil Corporation ExxonMobil Oil Corporation Pennzoil-Quaker State Company and Shell Oil Company

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jan 29, 2015

Additionally, Defendants assert that: • Plaintiffs' UDJA claim is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, including both immunity from suit and immunity from liability … suit and immunity from liability

in Re Catherine Tower LLC

553 S.W.3d 679 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jun 20, 2018

. §§ 6.01–.02 (establishing appraisal district in, and with boundaries coextensive with, each county). 4 See id. §§ 42.01, .21. … observed that the Code’s use of “market value” did not uniformly denote the conventional meaning of the price a willing buyer would pay a willing seller: Viewing tax code chapter 23 as a whole, the legislature clearly

Elite Auto Body LLC, D/B/A Precision Auto Body Rey R. Hernandez Yesica Diaz And David Damian v. Autocraft Body Works, Inc., Now Known as Wasson Road Ventures, Inc. D/B/A Autocraft Bodywerks

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Apr 21, 2015

A simple review of Plaintiffs Original Petition establishes that is not the case. C.R. 18-19. … (noting that an employee "is not entitled to invoke the First Amendment as a shield to immunize his act of thievery.").

Susan England v. Janice Kolbe, as Guardian of the Estate of Edna Moon

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

Mary clearly had " adequate time" to conduct discovery. … Governmental immunity from suit deprives CIV.