Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
22 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1953–1983 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Goodrich v. Superior Oil Co.green2 sentences1983The court in Goodrich v. Superior Oil Co., 150 Tex. 159 , 237 S.W.2d 969 (Tex.1951) said: The general rule of venue is, of course, that a defendant shall be sued in his own county, and however many and important are the exceptions contained in the statute, an equal doubt between the exception and the rule is to be resolved in favor of the rule. 1983The court in Goodrich v. Superior Oil Co., 150 Tex. 159 , 237 S.W.2d 969 (Tex.1951) said: The general rule of venue is, of course, that a defendant shall be sued in his own county, and however many and important are the exceptions contained in the statute, an equal doubt between the exception and the rule is to be resolved in favor of the rule. | 4 | 21 |
B & C CONSTRUCTION CO. v. Grain Handling Corp.green2 sentences1976Stated differently, the application of the exception must clearly appear.” See also, B & C Construction Co. v. Grain Handling Corp., 521 S.W.2d 98, 101 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1975, no writ), where the continuing validity of the Goodrich rule is recognized. 1976Stated differently, the application of the exception must clearly appear." See also, B & C Construction Co. v. Grain Handling Corp., 521 S.W.2d 98, 101 (Tex. Civ.App.— Amarillo 1975, no writ), where the continuing validity of the Goodrich rule is recognized. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Compton v. Elliott
green
2 sentences1963Stated differently, the application of the exception must clearly appear.” This statement by Judge Gafiagher was approved by the Commission of Appeals in Compton v. Elliott, Tex.Com.App., 88 S.W.2d 91 where it stated: “Judge Gallagher, writing the opinion in Fagg v. Benners (Tex.Civ. 1960Stated differently, the application of the exception must clearly appear.” This statement by Judge Gallagher was approved by the Commission of Appeals in Compton v. Elliott, 126 Tex. 232 , 88 S.W.2d 91 , 95: “Judge Gallagher, writing the opinion in Fagg v. Benners, (Tex.Civ.App.), 47 S.W.(2d) 872, 874 , said: ‘Appellant’s plea of privilege merely placed upon appellee the burden of proving one or more of the grounds of venue alleged in his controverting affidavit by a preponderance of the evidence, which means the greater degree and weight of credible testimony.’ ” F. W. | 3 | 1960–1963 |
Burtis v. Butler Bros.
green
2 sentences1968Stated differently, the application of the exception must clearly appear.” Goodrich v. Superior Oil Co., 150 Tex. 159 , 237 S.W.2d 969 (Tex.1951), citing Burtis v. Butler Bros., 148 Tex. 543 , 226 S.W.2d 825 (Tex.1950) and cases cited therein at page 828. 1968Stated differently, the application of the exception must clearly appear.” Goodrich v. Superior Oil Co., 150 Tex. 159 , 237 S.W.2d 969 (Tex.1951), citing Burtis v. Butler Bros., 148 Tex. 543 , 226 S.W.2d 825 (Tex.1950) and cases cited therein at page 828. | 2 | 1964–1968 |
First National Bank of Yorktown v. Pickett
green
1 sentence1978Goodrich v. Superior Oil Company, supra; Seldon v. Green, supra; First National Bank of Yorktown v. Pickett, 555 S.W.2d 547 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1977, n. w. h.). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Calhoun v. Padgett
green
1 sentence1973Calhoun v. Padgett, 409 S.W.2d 890 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler, 1966, n. w. h.); Reynolds & Huff v. White, supra. An equal doubt between an exception to the venue rule is to be resolved in favor of the rule and the application of the exception must clearly appear. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Reynolds & Huff v. White
green
1 sentence1973Calhoun v. Padgett, 409 S.W.2d 890 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler, 1966, n. w. h.); Reynolds & Huff v. White, supra. An equal doubt between an exception to the venue rule is to be resolved in favor of the rule and the application of the exception must clearly appear. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Casares v. Pioneer Casualty Company
green
1 sentence1964Stated differently, the application of the exception must clearly appear.” See also Casares v. Pioneer Casualty Company, Tex.Civ.App., 366 S.W.2d 652 ; Burtis v. Butler Bros., 148 Tex. 543 , 226 S.W.2d 825 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Ladner v. Reliance Corp.
green
2 sentences1960Stated differently, the application of the exception must clearly appear.” With reference to establishing venue facts under Subdivision 29a, our Supreme Court in Ladner v. Reliance Corporation et al., 156 Tex. 158 , 293 S.W.2d 758, 763 , has held as follows: “As stated in Compton v. Elliott, supra, proof of the venue facts is the price which the plaintiff pays for the benefit he expects to derive from the exception. 1960Stated differently, the application of the exception must clearly appear.” With reference to establishing venue facts under Subdivision 29a, our Supreme Court in Ladner v. Reliance Corporation et al., 156 Tex. 158 , 293 S.W.2d 758, 763 , has held as follows: “As stated in Compton v. Elliott, supra, proof of the venue facts is the price which the plaintiff pays for the benefit he expects to derive from the exception. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Fagg v. Benners
neutral
1 sentence1960Stated differently, the application of the exception must clearly appear.” This statement by Judge Gallagher was approved by the Commission of Appeals in Compton v. Elliott, 126 Tex. 232 , 88 S.W.2d 91 , 95: “Judge Gallagher, writing the opinion in Fagg v. Benners, (Tex.Civ.App.), 47 S.W.(2d) 872, 874 , said: ‘Appellant’s plea of privilege merely placed upon appellee the burden of proving one or more of the grounds of venue alleged in his controverting affidavit by a preponderance of the evidence, which means the greater degree and weight of credible testimony.’ ” F. W. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Cumba v. Union Bus Lines, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1953Also, Cumba v. Union Bus Lines, Inc., Tex.Civ.App., 229 S.W.2d 176 , interprets Secs. 73(a) and (b) of Art. 6701d governing right-of-way on a “through highway” while no facts in the record on appeal reveal that either of the intersecting highways was a "through highway” The first principle to be observed under the facts as above outlined from the record is that laid down by the Supreme Court in Goodrich v. Superior Oil Co., Tex.Sup., 237 S.W.2d 969, 972 [1], as follows: “The general rule of venue is, of course, that a defendant shall be sued in his own county, and however many and important ar | 1 | 1953–1953 |