Case law

Jan Lubin, Gilberto Villanueva, Michael Paladino, Gerald Hooks and Lesly K. Hooks v. Farmers Group, Inc. Farmers Underwriters Association Fire Underwriters Association Farmers Insurance Exchange Fire Insurance Exchange Texas Farmers Insurance Company Mid-Century Insurance Company of Texas Mid-Century Insurance Company

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Nov 6, 2009

Second, in addition to these general reductions, Farmers also agreed to give additional reductions to qualifying policyholders. … , and the notice informs the recipients how to determine whether they qualify for relief as members of the Credit Usage Notice Class.

Mark Fruge v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Oct 28, 2015

HN8 When the identity of the perpetrator can be established R. Evid. 404(b). … Robert Cantu interviewed the house, but she could not recall the facts clearly. During Appellant.

Mark Fruge v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Oct 28, 2015

HN8 When the identity of the perpetrator can be established R. Evid. 404(b). … Robert Cantu interviewed the house, but she could not recall the facts clearly. During Appellant.

Mark Fruge v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Oct 28, 2015

HN8 When the identity of the perpetrator can be established R. Evid. 404(b). … Robert Cantu interviewed the house, but she could not recall the facts clearly. During Appellant.

Paul D. Simmons v. Teresa A. Simmons

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

There was no evidence introduced at trial that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, (“QDRO”), to this effect was ever entered by any trial court or that Conoco was ever placed on notice of this particular provision of … An appellate court should reverse the judgment and order a new trial if the trial court’s fact finding was so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v.

T. Mark Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson//Cross-Appellants, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer v. Richard T. Archer, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer//Cross-Appellees, T. Mark Anderson, Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Feb 6, 2015

Defendants assert Plaintiffs do not qualify for the exception in this case. … Defendants assert Plaintiffs do not qualify for the exception in this case.

Crae Robert Pease v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Nov 24, 2015

In establish legal relations between principal and third person. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition page 63. … "[T]he accused is not required to anticipate any and all variant facts the State might hypothetically seek to establish." Brasfieldv.

Los Fresnos Consolidated Independent School District and Michael L. Williams, Commissioner of Education v. Jorge Vazquez

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jan 16, 2015

would need to dress in a tight outfit to qualify for the job. Id. … Because the Legislature drafted the nonrenewal and termination procedures differently it clearly did not intend for the Rules of Evidence to apply in nonrenewal hearings. 2.

Karra Trichele Allen v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Oct 4, 2016

This extra-statutory language clearly focuses the jury’s attention on a specific type of evidence relating to the central defensive theory of the case. … Law Applicable “No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disenfranchised except by the due course of the law of the land.” TEX.

Patrick Mark Love v. the State of Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 23, 2024

When, as here, the defendant does not make a timely objection during the proceedings below, we must determine whether the record establishes that the error caused him “egregious harm.” See Gonzalez v. … App.— Austin 1999, pet. ref’d) (determining that trial court implicitly overruled defendant’s objection that witness was not qualified to answer question by instructing witness that he could answer if he knew).

Reagan National Advertising of Austin, Inc. D/B/A Reagan National Advertising v. City of Austin, Texas And Marc A. Ott, Being Sued in His Official Capacity

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Sep 24, 2015

Off-premise signs are only allowed ifthey qualify as a legal non-conforming use. 9. Billboards are off-premise signs. 10. … PFM worked closely with departmental Subject Matter Experts to determine the average amount of time employees spend on each permit type in order to establish the average cost of providing a single permit.

Nancy Marie Peck v. Wayne Cody Peck

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 30, 2014

Patient Office Visit Wills ESTABLISHED PATIENT OFFICE VISIT Ms. … The immunizations were given prior to th( fatigue and right side ~rasthesias, and lasted for two weeks. Mrs.

Ricky Gonzales, Jr. v. Shannon Marie Gonzales

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jun 28, 2024

Intended injuries that have qualified as “substantial” have been as mild as missing work to drive a spouse to their job because the defendant’s conduct caused the loss of the spouse’s car. See Khorshid, Inc. v. … “The words used by the trial court must clearly indicate the intent to render judgment at the time the 27 words are expressed.”

Centerpoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC and Texas Genco, LP // Cross Gulf Coast Coalition of Cities, Houston Council for Health and Education, City of Houston, Coalition of Cities v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Office of Public Utility Counsel, Gulf Coast Coalition of Cities, City of Houston, Texas Industrial Energy Consumers, Houston Council for Health and Education, State of Texas, Occidental Power Marketing, L.P.

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Apr 17, 2008

For purposes of Section 39.262, book value shall be established as of December 31, 2001, or the date a market value is established through a market valuation method under Section 39.262(h), whichever is earlier, and shall … The dissent provided, in relevant part, as follows: To both permit Reliant to retain these [excess mitigation credits] and CenterPoint to recover the same amount in stranded costs is clearly a duplicative recovery . . . .

Centerpoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC and Texas Genco, LP // Cross Gulf Coast Coalition of Cities, Houston Council for Health and Education, City of Houston, Coalition of Cities v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Office of Public Utility Counsel, Gulf Coast Coalition of Cities, City of Houston, Texas Industrial Energy Consumers, Houston Council for Health and Education, State of Texas, Occidental Power Marketing, L.P.

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Apr 17, 2008

For purposes of Section 39.262, book value shall be established as of December 31, 2001, or the date a market value is established through a market valuation method under Section 39.262(h), whichever is earlier … The dissent provided, in relevant part, as follows: To both permit Reliant to retain these [excess mitigation credits] and CenterPoint to recover the same amount in stranded costs is clearly a duplicative

Centerpoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC and Texas Genco, LP // Cross Gulf Coast Coalition of Cities, Houston Council for Health and Education, City of Houston, Coalition of Cities v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Office of Public Utility Counsel, Gulf Coast Coalition of Cities, City of Houston, Texas Industrial Energy Consumers, Houston Council for Health and Education, State of Texas, Occidental Power Marketing, L.P.

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 20, 2007

For purposes of Section 39.262, book value shall be established as of December 31, 2001, or the date a market value is established through a market valuation method under Section 39.262(h), whichever is earlier … On the contrary, it insists that the 7.5% interest rate was imposed to ensure that recover the same amount in stranded costs is clearly a duplicative recovery . . . . ...

Stephen M. Daniels v. Tony R. Bertolino

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Apr 7, 2015

Clearly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding against reaching such a conclusion. Even if the trial court abused its discretion, Mr. … Article 6228a-5, Vernon's TeX~lS Civil Statutes), with the intent that the annuity contract will be the subject of a salary reduction agreement, as defined by that Act, if the annuity contract is not an eligible qualified

Centerpoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC and Texas Genco, LP // Cross Gulf Coast Coalition of Cities, Houston Council for Health and Education, City of Houston, Coalition of Cities v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Office of Public Utility Counsel, Gulf Coast Coalition of Cities, City of Houston, Texas Industrial Energy Consumers, Houston Council for Health and Education, State of Texas, Occidental Power Marketing, L.P.

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 20, 2007

For purposes of Section 39.262, book value shall be established as of December 31, 2001, or the date a market value is established through a market valuation method under Section 39.262(h), whichever is earlier, and shall … The dissent provided, in relevant part, as follows: To both permit Reliant to retain these [excess mitigation credits] and CenterPoint to recover the same amount in stranded costs is clearly a duplicative recovery . . . .

Charles O. "Chuck" Grigson, Gerald Hooks, and Leslie Hooks v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jul 31, 2015

The new notice must be in a minimum of 12 point type and clearly marked as "IMPORTANT INSURANCE INFORMATION." … Each notice must be in a minimum of 12 point type clearly marked as IMPORTi\NT INSURANCE Il'JFORMATION.

Henry Hutcherson III v. Tina Hutcherson

Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Mar 19, 2026

Code § 3.63(a). 7 However, because section 5.41 had more clearly defined “the rights of the parties,” the trial court, according to section 3.63(a), must give “due regard” to the terms of a premarital agreement … A spouse qualifying for maintenance under subsection 8.051(2)(B) must also rebut the presumption that maintenance is not warranted “unless the spouse seeking maintenance has exercised diligence in . . . earning sufficient