purposes rule in Texas

2022Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337 , 343 n.7 (Tex. 1993) (explaining that “grounds for summary judgment and the issues defeating entitlement thereto must be in writing and before the trial court at the hearing” and that “to permit grounds and issues to be presented orally would encourage parties to request that a court reporter record summary judgment hearings, a practice neither necessary nor appropriate to the purposes of such a hearing” (citing City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 677 (Tex. 1979))). 7 summary judgment proof when necessary to establish a fact issue” or nonmovant “m

2020“To permit ‘issues’ to be presented orally would encourage parties to request that a court reporter record summary judgment hearings, a -3- 04-19-00129-CV practice neither necessary nor appropriate to the purposes of such a hearing.” Id.

2009The purposes of this exception are to ensure that a “defendant is not twice vexed for the same acts, and to achieve judicial economy by precluding those who have had a fair trial from relitigating claims.” Id. (citing Benson v. Wanda Petroleum Co., 468 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex. 1971)).

2009The purposes of this exception are to ensure that a "defendant is not twice vexed for the same acts, and to achieve judicial economy by precluding those who have had a fair trial from relitigating claims." Id. (citing Benson v. Wanda Petroleum Co. , 468 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex. 1971)).

2015Richards v. Allen, 402 S.W.2d 158, 161 (Tex.1966); rule 166-A(c).

2002It is the presentation of the issues orally that both cases held would encourage parties “to request that a court reporter record summary judgment hearings, a practice neither necessary nor appropriate to the purposes of such a hearing.” Clear Creek, 589 S.W.2d at 677 (citing Richards v. Allen, 402 S.W.2d 158, 161 (Tex.1966) and Tex.R.

2026Given the purposes of the exception, an officer may search the arrestee’s “personal effects.” Dew v. State, 214 S.W.3d 459, 462 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.).

2025Given the purposes of the exception, the search allows “a relatively extensive exploration of the person,” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 25 (1968), and his “personal effects,” Dew v. State, 214 S.W.3d 459, 462 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.).

2013R.K. v. Ramirez, 887 S.W.2d 836, 840 (Tex.1994) (orig. proceeding).

2004R.K. v. Ramirez, 887 S.W.2d 836, 840 (Tex.1994) (citing Ginsberg v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 686 S.W.2d 105, 107 (Tex.1985) (orig.proeeeding) and Ex Parte Abell, 613 S.W.2d 255, 262 (Tex.1981) (orig.proeeeding)).

2022In such situations, we have said, “[t]he principles that are to guide [the] court’s discretionary decision are determined by the purposes of the rule at issue.” Samlowski v. Wooten, 332 S.W.3d 404, 414 (Tex. 2011) (Guzman, J., concurring); see id. at 410 (plurality op.); Womack v. Berry, 291 S.W.2d 677, 683 (Tex. 1956) (orig. proceeding).

2015See In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 203, 207 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Downer, 701 S.W.2d at 242 ; Womack v. Berry, 291 S.W.2d 677, 683 (1956) (orig. proceeding).

2000See id. at 440, 104 S.Ct. at 3150 .

2000See id. at 440, 104 S.Ct. at 3150 .

2025Given the purposes of the exception, the search allows “a relatively extensive exploration of the person,” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 25 (1968), and his “personal effects,” Dew v. State, 214 S.W.3d 459, 462 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.).

2025Given the purposes of the exception, the search allows “a relatively extensive exploration of the person,” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 25 (1968), and his “personal effects,” Dew v. State, 214 S.W.3d 459, 462 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.).

2024“The party offering the undisclosed evidence has the burden to establish good cause or lack of surprise, which must be supported by the record.” Lopez v. La Madeleine of Tex., Inc., 200 S.W.3d 854, 860 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); see also TEX.

2022“The party offering the undisclosed evidence has the burden to establish good cause or lack of surprise, which must be supported by the record.” Lopez v. La Madeleine of Tex., Inc., 200 S.W.3d 854, 860 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); see also Tex. R.

2024Hobbs v. State, 298 S.W.3d 193, 199 (Tex. Crim.

2022Hobbs v. State, 298 S.W.3d 193, 199 (Tex. Crim.

2024“The purposes of this rule are to promote responsible assessment of settlement and prevent trial by ambush.” In re Kings Ridge Homeowners Ass’n, 303 S.W.3d 773, 783 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, orig. proceeding).

2022“The purposes of this rule are to promote 9 responsible assessment of settlement and prevent trial by ambush.” In re Kings Ridge Homeowners Ass’n, 303 S.W.3d 773, 783 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, orig. proceeding).

2019See Black v. Shor, 443 S.W.3d 154, 166 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2013, pet. denied) (“The term ‘tried’ for the purposes of rule 4 296 includes the disposition of a case rendered after an evidentiary hearing before the trial court upon conflicting evidence.”); Puri v. Mansukhani, 973 S.W.2d 701, 708 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (“A case is ‘tried’ when there is an evidentiary hearing before the court upon conflicting evidence.”); see generally, Lusk v. Serv.

2013See R.H. v. Smith, 339 S.W.3d 756, 761 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2011, no pet.); Puri v. Mansukhani, 973 S.W.2d 701, 708 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.) When a judgment is rendered as a matter of law, findings and conclusions have no purpose and should not be requested or considered on appeal.

2015See In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 203, 207 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Downer, 701 S.W.2d at 242 ; Womack v. Berry, 291 S.W.2d 677, 683 (1956) (orig. proceeding).

2011See In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 203, 207 (Tex.2004) (orig. proceeding); Womack, 291 S.W.2d at 683 .

2015Second, the court looked to see "whether the factual situation presented is such that the purposes of the doctrine of merger shall be frustrated absent enforcement of the bar." 496 S.W.2d at 532. [6] In Jeanes v. Henderson, 688 S.W.2d 100, 103 (Tex.1985), we cited section 24(2) of the Restatement as authority for the definition of claims preclusion.

1992In Jeanes v. Henderson, 688 S.W.2d 100, 103 (Tex.1985), we cited section 24(2) of the Restatement as authority for the definition of claims preclusion.

2013See Baylor Univ. v. Sonnichsen, 221 S.W.3d 632, 636 (Tex.2007) (per curiam); Haase v. Glazner, 62 S.W.3d 795, 799 (Tex.2001). .

2013For the purposes of this analysis, it is presumed that the jury’s finding in response to Question 19 and Westergren’s failure to challenge this finding in the trial court do not preclude Westergren from successfully challenging the trial court’s judgment as to the fraud claims. 43 See Baylor Univ. v. Sonnichsen, 221 S.W.3d 632, 636 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam); Haase v. Glazner, 62 S.W.3d 795, 799 (Tex. 2001). 44 See Hugh Symons Group, PLC v. Motorola, Inc., 292 F.3d 466, 470 (5th Cir. 2002) (applying Texas law); Lam v. Nguyen, 335 S.W.3d 786 , 791–92 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, pet. denied); Bank of

2013See Baylor Univ. v. Sonnichsen, 221 S.W.3d 632, 636 (Tex.2007) (per curiam); Haase v. Glazner, 62 S.W.3d 795, 799 (Tex.2001). .

2013For the purposes of this analysis, it is presumed that the jury’s finding in response to Question 19 and Westergren’s failure to challenge this finding in the trial court do not preclude Westergren from successfully challenging the trial court’s judgment as to the fraud claims. 43 See Baylor Univ. v. Sonnichsen, 221 S.W.3d 632, 636 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam); Haase v. Glazner, 62 S.W.3d 795, 799 (Tex. 2001). 44 See Hugh Symons Group, PLC v. Motorola, Inc., 292 F.3d 466, 470 (5th Cir. 2002) (applying Texas law); Lam v. Nguyen, 335 S.W.3d 786 , 791–92 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, pet. denied); Bank of

2013Auto Supply Co. v. Campbell , 373 S.W.2d 735, 736 (Tex. 1963) (setting out the duty of a possessor of land with respect to dangerous conditions as including a duty to either make the condition reasonably safe or give a warning adequate to enable visitors to avoid the harm); see also Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith , 307 S.W.3d 762, 774 (Tex. 2010) (“In some circumstances, no warning can suffice as reasonably prudent action to reduce or remove an unreasonable risk.”).

2012See Del Lago Partners, Inc., 307 S.W.3d at 770 ; City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 822, 827 .

2013Aylor v. State 727 S.W.2d 727, 729 (Tex.App.-Austin 1987, pet. ref'd).

2013Aylor v. State 727 S.W.2d 727, 729 (Tex.App. -- Austin 1987, pet. ref'd).

2012See id. at 1485.

2012For the purposes of the analysis in this opinion, it is presumed that (1) the opinion in Padilla applies retroactively to the case under review, and (2) the performance of appellant’s trial counsel was deficient because he did not advise appellant that appellant’s deportation would be ―presumptively mandatory‖ upon appellant’s conviction for the offense to which appellant pleaded ―guilty.‖ See id. 3 In Padilla, the Supreme Court did not change the standard for proving prejudice under Strickland, but the Supreme Court made several observations regarding proof of prejudice.

2011See Lott v. State, 874 S.W.2d 687 , 688 n.2 (Tex. Crim.

2011See Lott v. State , 874 S.W.2d 687 , 688 n.2 (Tex. Crim.

2011On appeal, Jon mentions the theft of personal property but does not appear to advance an independent argument regarding the viability of his claim of theft, if any, in relation to the trial court’s dismissal. [3] For the purposes of our analysis and due to the unclear nature of Jon’s claims against the ten individual defendants, we set aside any considerations regarding immunity as it applies to the individual defendants. [4] Further, though the trial court could not have concluded that Jon’s claims had no arguable basis in fact if it had not held a hearing, see Hector v. Thaler , 862 S.W.2d 1

2002On appeal, Jon mentions the theft of personal property but does not appear to advance an independent argument regarding the viability of his claim of theft, if any, in relation to the trial court’s dismissal. [3] For the purposes of our analysis and due to the unclear nature of Jon’s claims against the ten individual defendants, we set aside any considerations regarding immunity as it applies to the individual defendants. [4] Further, though the trial court could not have concluded that Jon’s claims had no arguable basis in fact if it had not held a hearing, see Hector v. Thaler , 862 S.W.2d 1

2009Wheeler v. Yettie Kersting Mem'l Hosp. , 761 S.W.2d 785, 787 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, writ denied); see Sosa v. Cent.

2009Wheeler v. Yettie Kersting Mem’l Hosp., 761 S.W.2d 785, 787 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, writ denied); see Sosa v. Cent.

2009FAM.CODE ANN. § 51.13(a) ("Except as provided by Subsection (d), an order of adjudication or disposition in a proceeding under this title is not a conviction of a crime."); In re B.W., 274 S.W.3d 179, 182 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. filed) (involving similar argument that a juvenile appellant was "prosecuted" for prostitution). [3] For the purposes of our analysis, we presume, without deciding, that appellant's arguments are not barred by her confession in the stipulation of evidence or by the trial court's adjudication of appellant based on this agreement. [4] Unless otherwise sp

2009Code Ann. ' 51.13(a) ( A Except as provided by Subsection (d), an order of adjudication or disposition in a proceeding under this title is not a conviction of a crime. @ ); In re B.W. , 274 S.W.3d 179, 182 (Tex. App. C Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. filed) (involving similar argument that a juvenile appellant was A prosecuted @ for prostitution). [3] For the purposes of our analysis, we presume, without deciding, that appellant = s arguments are not barred by her confession in the stipulation of evidence or by the trial court = s adjudication of appellant based on this agreement. [4] Unless ot

2018The purposes of a hearing on a motion for new trial are to decide -4- 04-17-00119-CR whether the case should be retried and to “prepare a record for presenting issues on appeal in the event the motion is denied.” Id.

2018The purposes of a hearing on a motion for new trial are to decide whether the case should be retried and to “prepare a record for presenting issues on appeal in the event the motion is denied.” Id.