discussed rule in Texas

1977Before such indemnity contracts may be enforced it must clearly appear that the contracting parties in *466 tended that the indemnitor would be held liable for damages resulting from the negligence of the indemnitee. ****** In Mitchell’s, Inc. v. Friedman, 157 Tex. 424 , 303 S.W.2d 775 , this Court discussed the rule that an indemnity agreement will not protect the indem-nitee against the consequence of his own negligence unless the obligation is expressed in unequivocal terms * * ****** The general rules relating to the construction of contracts are applicable to indemnity contracts.

1977Before such indemnity contracts may be enforced it must clearly appear that the contracting parties in *466 tended that the indemnitor would be held liable for damages resulting from the negligence of the indemnitee. ****** In Mitchell’s, Inc. v. Friedman, 157 Tex. 424 , 303 S.W.2d 775 , this Court discussed the rule that an indemnity agreement will not protect the indem-nitee against the consequence of his own negligence unless the obligation is expressed in unequivocal terms * * ****** The general rules relating to the construction of contracts are applicable to indemnity contracts.

1997If the reviewing court determines the improper remark was cured by the instruction, there is no need for an 81(b)(2) analysis since there is no “error in the proceedings” — a prerequisite to application of rule 81(b)(2). 28 Richards v. State, 29 decided by the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, contains a thoughtful analysis of the issue, and that court reached the same conclusion that we do: In Washington v. State, 822 S.W.2d 110, 117-18 (Tex.App.—Waco 1991), rev’d on other grounds, 856 S.W.2d 184 (Tex.Crim.App.1993), the court discussed the analysis to be applied when the State engages in improper

1996In Washington v. State, 822 S.W.2d 110, 117-18 (Tex.App.—Waco 1991), rev’d on other grounds, 856 S.W.2d 184 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993), the court discussed the analysis to be applied when the State engages in improper jury argument.

2021Id.

2020Id. at 413 .

2015In Bentley, 94 S.W.3d at 606 , and in Saenz v. Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, 925 S.W.2d 607, 614 (Tex. 1996), the court discussed the requirement that appellate courts review whether there is any evidence to support the amount of damages awarded: –30– While the impossibility of any exact evaluation of mental anguish requires that juries be given a measure of discretion in finding damages, that discretion is limited.

2015In Black v. Collins, 962 F.2d 394 (5th Cir. 1995), cert denied, 504 U.S. 992 (19996), the Court discussed the requirement of an evidentiary hearinq.

2015In Black v. Collins, 962 F.2d 394 (5th Cir. 1995), cert denied, 504 U.S. 992 (19996), the Court discussed the requirement of an evidentiary hearinq.

2002Id.

2001This Court discussed the doctrine of legal impossibility and factual impossibility at length in Lawhorn v. State, 898 S.W.2d 886 (Tex.Crim.App.1995).

2001Werner, 909 S.W.2d at 869 .

2001Werner, 909 S.W.2d at 869 .

1998In Wilson v. State, 692 S.W.2d 661 (Tex.Cr.App.1984)(Opinion on State’s Motion for Rehearing), this Court discussed the rule followed in some jurisdictions where the prosecution has the right to appeal from the trial court’s rulings.

1998That is, “when a prosecutor loses on the merits at the suppression hearing, he should be expected to put before the judge at that time any other basis upon which he is entitled to prevail.” Id. at 668 .

1998In Hernandez v. State, 805 S.W.2d 409, 411-12 (Tex.Cr.App.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 960 , 111 S.Ct. 2275 , 114 L.Ed.2d 726 (1991), this Court discussed the warnings which must be given to comply with the mandate of Estelle v. Smith .

1998In Hernandez v. State, 805 S.W.2d 409, 411-12 (Tex.Cr.App.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 960 , 111 S.Ct. 2275 , 114 L.Ed.2d 726 (1991), this Court discussed the warnings which must be given to comply with the mandate of Estelle v. Smith.

1998In Hernandez v. State, 805 S.W.2d 409, 411-12 (Tex.Cr.App.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 960 , 111 S.Ct. 2275 , 114 L.Ed.2d 726 (1991), this Court discussed the warnings which must be given to comply with the mandate of Estelle v. Smith .

1998In Hernandez v. State, 805 S.W.2d 409, 411-12 (Tex.Cr.App.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 960 , 111 S.Ct. 2275 , 114 L.Ed.2d 726 (1991), this Court discussed the warnings which must be given to comply with the mandate of Estelle v. Smith.

1998There it was stated: Before any such psychiatric interview, the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights should be protected by warnings intended to serve as "procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." [citations omitted] Such warnings should inform the defendant that he has the right to remain silent and that his statements may later be used against him in court; if the defendant faces capital charges, this warning should specifically inform him that his statements could be used against him at the punishment stage of his capital murder trial. [Emphasis adde

1998There it was stated: Before any such psychiatric interview, the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights should be protected by warnings intended to serve as “procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.” [citations omitted] Such warnings should inform the defendant that he has the right to remain silent and that his statements may later be used against him in court; if the defendant faces capital charges, this warning should specifically inform him that his statements could be used against him at the punishment stage of his capital murder trial. [Emphasis adde

1998There it was stated: Before any such psychiatric interview, the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights should be protected by warnings intended to serve as "procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." [citations omitted] Such warnings should inform the defendant that he has the right to remain silent and that his statements may later be used against him in court; if the defendant faces capital charges, this warning should specifically inform him that his statements could be used against him at the punishment stage of his capital murder trial. [Emphasis adde

1998There it was stated: Before any such psychiatric interview, the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights should be protected by warnings intended to serve as “procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.” [citations omitted] Such warnings should inform the defendant that he has the right to remain silent and that his statements may later be used against him in court; if the defendant faces capital charges, this warning should specifically inform him that his statements could be used against him at the punishment stage of his capital murder trial. [Emphasis adde

1998There it was stated: Before any such psychiatric interview, the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights should be protected by warnings intended to serve as "procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." [citations omitted] Such warnings should inform the defendant that he has the right to remain silent and that his statements may later be used against him in court; if the defendant faces capital charges, this warning should specifically inform him that his statements could be used against him at the punishment stage of his capital murder trial. [Emphasis adde

1998There it was stated: Before any such psychiatric interview, the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights should be protected by warnings intended to serve as “procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.” [citations omitted] Such warnings should inform the defendant that he has the right to remain silent and that his statements may later be used against him in court; if the defendant faces capital charges, this warning should specifically inform him that his statements could be used against him at the punishment stage of his capital murder trial. [Emphasis adde

1996Cheney v. State, 755 S.W.2d 123 (Tex.Cr.App.1988).

1996Cheney v. State, 755 S.W.2d 123 (Tex.Cr.App.1988).

1996In Pennington v. State, 697 S.W.2d 387 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), the court discussed this requirement of article 36.14, stating: This article is mandatory and there must be strict compliance with its provisions to warrant review.