Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,255 results
0.65s
7 S.W.3d 225 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 2, 1999
As the rule itself requires, the proponent of the testimony must establish (1) that the scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will aid the trier of fact, and (2) that the expert witness is qualified to testify … The proponent must establish that the expert has knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education regarding the specific issue before the trial court which would qualify the expert to give an opinion on that particular
Cited 243 timesPublishedLarry Koch, Inc. and Those Similarly Situated v. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 31, 2001
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY The common-law doctrine of sovereign immunity bars Koch's actions against the State unless they come within the class of cases described in section 5.352 of the Texas Water Code, wherein the legislature … We hold the doctrine of sovereign immunity did not, for the reasons given, deprive the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 9, 2004
Weatherford wrote a letter to Chiu, stating, “My letter, dated November 8, 2000, established quite clearly that my November 7, 2000 request to have the amended land use proposal regarding eighteen acres of my property adopted … law that the legislature, had it wanted to effect such a change, must have clearly so stated.”
Cited 0 timesPublishedSouthwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utility Commission
72 S.W.3d 23 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jul 26, 2001
And where the legislature qualifies a delegated power by specifying a method for its exercise, “[t]he prescribed method excludes all others, and must be followed.” Cobra Oil & Gas Corp. v. … We cannot see that any of the various statutory powers of the PUC clearly negate SWBT’s claims and statutory-construction arguments.
Cited 9 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Sep 26, 2013
“If the pleadings are insufficient to establish jurisdiction but do not affirmatively demonstrate an incurable defect, the plaintiff should be afforded the opportunity to replead.” Id. at 643. … (concluding that agency statement did not qualify as rule because it applied only to particular company and because agency did not express intention to apply statement to all future cases).
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Dec 9, 2004
Weatherford wrote a letter to Chiu, stating, "My letter, dated November 8, 2000, established quite clearly that my November 7, 2000 request to have the amended land use proposal regarding eighteen acres of my property adopted … law that the legislature, had it wanted to effect such a change, must have clearly so stated."
Cited 0 timesPublishedNational Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Yeo
114 S.W.3d 584 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Nov 13, 2003
The Permanent Injunction Against UT-Austin The Texas Constitution provides: No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the due … established protected liberty interest.
Reversed by National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Yeo, 48 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1016 (2005)Cited 4 timesPublished113 S.W.3d 819 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Aug 14, 2003
Under all the circumstances, Beauregard was not qualified to testify. Rule 808(4) clearly requires the statements by the declarant be made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. … As the rule itself requires, the proponent of the testimony must establish (1) that the scientific, technical, or other special knowledge will aid the trier of fact, and (2) that the expert witness is qualified to testify
Overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. State, 2008 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1627 (2008)Cited 242 timesPublishedLarry Koch, Inc. and Those Similarly Situated v. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 31, 2001
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY The common-law doctrine of sovereign immunity bars Koch’s actions against the State unless they come within the class of cases described in section 5.352 of the Texas Water Code, wherein … Therefore, the TNRCC reasons, the statute “is a mandamus-like provision” which requires a “duty” that is plain, clearly defined, and ministerial, that is to say a present legal duty not requiring the exercise of administrative
Cited 0 timesPublishedHarris County Hospital District v. Public Utility Commission of Texas
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Nov 13, 2015
The Hospital District submits that these allegations are clearly sufficient to invoke the provisions of Section 15.003 of the Utilities Code. … With regard to the question of immunity, this Court has held that the State has consented to suits for judicial review of the Commission’s final orders. Lopez v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · May 31, 2001
Under article 3.50-2 of the Texas Insurance Code, ERS has the authority to contract with "a qualified, experienced firm of group insurance specialists who shall act for the trustee [State Board of Trustees that administers … The Texas Employees Uniform Group Insurance Benefits Act established a plan for the purchase of group life, accident, and health insurance for state employees. Tex. Ins. Code Ann. art. 3.50-2 (West 1981 & Supp. 2001).
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jun 28, 2019
I, § 19 (“No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land.”). … At issue then is when did the legislature intend to abrogate established common law principles and with what statutory provisions did it clearly express and effectuate that intent.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Mar 8, 2001
Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the testimony at trial established that the cocaine was in "plain view," appellant was within an arm's reach of the drugs and the drugs were readily accessible on the dresser … In addition, after reviewing all of the evidence, we believe the verdict was not so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and manifestly unjust.
Cited 0 timesPublishedCharles Ly v. Sara Austin, M.D., and Kent Ellington, M.D.
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jul 13, 2007
Page’s report (1) failed to establish that she was an “expert” qualified to testify concerning the matters stated in her report; and (2) lacked a fair summary of her opinions regarding the applicable standard of care, … Suzanne Page was qualified.
Cited 0 timesPublishedCharles Ly v. Sara Austin, M.D., and Kent Ellington, M.D.
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jul 13, 2007
Page's report (1) failed to establish that she was an "expert" qualified to testify concerning the matters stated in her report; and (2) lacked a fair summary of her opinions regarding the applicable standard of care, its … Suzanne Page was qualified.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Mar 8, 2001
Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the testimony at trial established that the cocaine was in “plain view,” appellant was within an arm’s reach of the drugs and the drugs were readily accessible on the dresser … In addition, after reviewing all of the evidence, we believe the verdict was not so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and manifestly unjust.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jan 6, 2022
Sovereign immunity implicates a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction and generally bars suits against the State or its subdivisions, absent a clear and unambiguous waiver of immunity by the Legislature. … —Austin 2018, pet. denied) (explaining that “inability [of state] to enforce its duly enacted [laws] clearly inflicts irreparable harm,” quoting Abbott v. Perez, 138 S. Ct. 2305, 2324 n.17 (2018)).
Cited 0 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Feb 28, 2020
making contrary findings and conclusions, (2) the district court erred in finding that Gold’s is the consumer of the large equipment, and (3) the district court erred in determining that Gold’s was required, but failed, to establish … Having determined that Gold’s did not clearly show it qualified for the exemption based on section 151.006, we need not address its remaining arguments relating to the large equipment.
Cited 0 timesPublishedFreightliner Corp. v. Ruan Leasing Co.
6 S.W.3d 726 · Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Nov 18, 1999
Section 82.002(a) clearly states that only loss caused by the seller’s negligence will defeat a duty to indemnify. See id. § 82.002(a). … The exception is clearly intended to make a loss caused by the seller’s negligence a part of the products liability action.
Cited 8 timesPublishedTexas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · Jul 11, 2003
Yeo presented testimony from multiple witnesses indicating that she had established a reputation as a world-class athlete that qualified her for significant endorsement and other pecuniary opportunities in her home country … established protected interest.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna