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.
19 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1945–1989 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 |
|---|---|---|
State Board of Water Engineers v. Slaughtergreen2 sentences1980Tex.R.Civ.P. 279; State v. Harrington, 407 S.W.2d 467, 479 (Tex.1966); Yellow Cab and Baggage Co. v. Green, 154 Tex. 330, 333 , 277 S.W.2d 92, 93 (1955); Olivares v. Porter Poultry & Egg Co., 523 S.W.2d 726, 729 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1975, no writ); McNutt v. Qualls, 433 S.W.2d 521, 524 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1968, no writ); Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca, 407 S.W.2d 325, 331 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1966, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Crowell-Gifford Furniture Co. v. Cloutman, 276 S.W.2d 539, 551 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1955, writ ref’d n. r. e.). 1978State v. Harrington, 407 S.W.2d 467, 479 (Tex.1966); Yellow Cab & Baggage Co. v. Green, 154 Tex. 330 , 277 S.W.2d 92, 93 (1955); Olivares v. Porter Poultry & Egg Co., 523 S.W.2d 726 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1975, no writ); McNutt v. Qualls, 433 S.W.2d 521 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1968, no writ); Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca, 407 S.W.2d 325 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1966, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 3 | 3 |
Yellow Cab and Baggage Company v. Greengreen2 sentences1980Tex.R.Civ.P. 279; State v. Harrington, 407 S.W.2d 467, 479 (Tex.1966); Yellow Cab and Baggage Co. v. Green, 154 Tex. 330, 333 , 277 S.W.2d 92, 93 (1955); Olivares v. Porter Poultry & Egg Co., 523 S.W.2d 726, 729 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1975, no writ); McNutt v. Qualls, 433 S.W.2d 521, 524 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1968, no writ); Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca, 407 S.W.2d 325, 331 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1966, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Crowell-Gifford Furniture Co. v. Cloutman, 276 S.W.2d 539, 551 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1955, writ ref’d n. r. e.). 1980Tex.R.Civ.P. 279; State v. Harrington, 407 S.W.2d 467, 479 (Tex.1966); Yellow Cab and Baggage Co. v. Green, 154 Tex. 330, 333 , 277 S.W.2d 92, 93 (1955); Olivares v. Porter Poultry & Egg Co., 523 S.W.2d 726, 729 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1975, no writ); McNutt v. Qualls, 433 S.W.2d 521, 524 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1968, no writ); Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca, 407 S.W.2d 325, 331 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1966, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Crowell-Gifford Furniture Co. v. Cloutman, 276 S.W.2d 539, 551 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1955, writ ref’d n. r. e.). | 2 | 4 |
Ryan Mortgage Investors v. Fleming-Woodgreen2 sentences1989Donnelley Marketing v. Lionel Sosa, Inc., 716 S.W.2d 598, 602 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1986, no writ); Ryan Mortgage Investors v. Fleming-Wood, 650 S.W.2d 928, 933 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1983, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Tex.R.Civ.P. 278. 1986“Failure to submit a definition or explanatory instruction shall not be deemed a ground for reversal of the judgment unless a substantially correct definition or explanatory instruction has been requested in writing and tendered by the party complaining of the judgment.” TEX.R.CIV.P. 279; see also Ryan Mortgage Investors v. Fleming-Wood, 650 S.W.2d 928, 933 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1983, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 2 | 2 |
McNutt v. Quallsgreen2 sentences1980Tex.R.Civ.P. 279; State v. Harrington, 407 S.W.2d 467, 479 (Tex.1966); Yellow Cab and Baggage Co. v. Green, 154 Tex. 330, 333 , 277 S.W.2d 92, 93 (1955); Olivares v. Porter Poultry & Egg Co., 523 S.W.2d 726, 729 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1975, no writ); McNutt v. Qualls, 433 S.W.2d 521, 524 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1968, no writ); Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca, 407 S.W.2d 325, 331 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1966, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Crowell-Gifford Furniture Co. v. Cloutman, 276 S.W.2d 539, 551 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1955, writ ref’d n. r. e.). 1978State v. Harrington, 407 S.W.2d 467, 479 (Tex.1966); Yellow Cab & Baggage Co. v. Green, 154 Tex. 330 , 277 S.W.2d 92, 93 (1955); Olivares v. Porter Poultry & Egg Co., 523 S.W.2d 726 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1975, no writ); McNutt v. Qualls, 433 S.W.2d 521 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1968, no writ); Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca, 407 S.W.2d 325 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1966, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 1 | 3 |
Wilson v. City of Port Lavacagreen2 sentences1980Tex.R.Civ.P. 279; State v. Harrington, 407 S.W.2d 467, 479 (Tex.1966); Yellow Cab and Baggage Co. v. Green, 154 Tex. 330, 333 , 277 S.W.2d 92, 93 (1955); Olivares v. Porter Poultry & Egg Co., 523 S.W.2d 726, 729 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1975, no writ); McNutt v. Qualls, 433 S.W.2d 521, 524 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1968, no writ); Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca, 407 S.W.2d 325, 331 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1966, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Crowell-Gifford Furniture Co. v. Cloutman, 276 S.W.2d 539, 551 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1955, writ ref’d n. r. e.). 1978State v. Harrington, 407 S.W.2d 467, 479 (Tex.1966); Yellow Cab & Baggage Co. v. Green, 154 Tex. 330 , 277 S.W.2d 92, 93 (1955); Olivares v. Porter Poultry & Egg Co., 523 S.W.2d 726 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1975, no writ); McNutt v. Qualls, 433 S.W.2d 521 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1968, no writ); Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca, 407 S.W.2d 325 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1966, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 1 | 2 |
Olivares v. Porter Poultry & Egg Co.green2 sentences1980Tex.R.Civ.P. 279; State v. Harrington, 407 S.W.2d 467, 479 (Tex.1966); Yellow Cab and Baggage Co. v. Green, 154 Tex. 330, 333 , 277 S.W.2d 92, 93 (1955); Olivares v. Porter Poultry & Egg Co., 523 S.W.2d 726, 729 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1975, no writ); McNutt v. Qualls, 433 S.W.2d 521, 524 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1968, no writ); Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca, 407 S.W.2d 325, 331 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1966, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Crowell-Gifford Furniture Co. v. Cloutman, 276 S.W.2d 539, 551 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1955, writ ref’d n. r. e.). 1978State v. Harrington, 407 S.W.2d 467, 479 (Tex.1966); Yellow Cab & Baggage Co. v. Green, 154 Tex. 330 , 277 S.W.2d 92, 93 (1955); Olivares v. Porter Poultry & Egg Co., 523 S.W.2d 726 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1975, no writ); McNutt v. Qualls, 433 S.W.2d 521 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1968, no writ); Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca, 407 S.W.2d 325 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1966, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 1 | 2 |
Donnelley Marketing v. Lionel Sosa, Inc.green1 sentence1989Donnelley Marketing v. Lionel Sosa, Inc., 716 S.W.2d 598, 602 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1986, no writ); Ryan Mortgage Investors v. Fleming-Wood, 650 S.W.2d 928, 933 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1983, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Tex.R.Civ.P. 278. | 1 | 1 |
Lex Tex Ltd., Inc. v. Universal Textured Yarns, Inc.green1 sentence1980Rule 279 states in part: “(f)ailure to submit a definition or explanatory instruction shall not be deemed a ground for reversal of the judgment unless a substantially correct definition or explanatory instruction has been requested in writing and tendered by the party complaining of the judgment.” Rule 279, T.R.C.P.; see Crutcher-Rolfs-Cummings, Inc. v. Ballard, 540 S.W.2d 380 (Tex.Civ.App. — Corpus Christi 1976, writ ref’d n. r. e.) cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2978 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1977); First State Bank and Trust Company of Edinburg v. George, 519 S.W.2d 198 (Tex.Civ.App. — Corp | 1 | 1 |
Crowell-Gifford Furniture Company v. Cloutmangreen1 sentence1980Tex.R.Civ.P. 279; State v. Harrington, 407 S.W.2d 467, 479 (Tex.1966); Yellow Cab and Baggage Co. v. Green, 154 Tex. 330, 333 , 277 S.W.2d 92, 93 (1955); Olivares v. Porter Poultry & Egg Co., 523 S.W.2d 726, 729 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1975, no writ); McNutt v. Qualls, 433 S.W.2d 521, 524 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1968, no writ); Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca, 407 S.W.2d 325, 331 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1966, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Crowell-Gifford Furniture Co. v. Cloutman, 276 S.W.2d 539, 551 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1955, writ ref’d n. r. e.). | 1 | 1 |
Crutcher-Rolfs-Cummings, Inc. v. Ballardgreen1 sentence1980Rule 279 states in part: “(f)ailure to submit a definition or explanatory instruction shall not be deemed a ground for reversal of the judgment unless a substantially correct definition or explanatory instruction has been requested in writing and tendered by the party complaining of the judgment.” Rule 279, T.R.C.P.; see Crutcher-Rolfs-Cummings, Inc. v. Ballard, 540 S.W.2d 380 (Tex.Civ.App. — Corpus Christi 1976, writ ref’d n. r. e.) cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2978 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1977); First State Bank and Trust Company of Edinburg v. George, 519 S.W.2d 198 (Tex.Civ.App. — Corp | 1 | 1 |
Dawkins v. Nabisco, Inc.green1 sentence1980Rule 279 states in part: “(f)ailure to submit a definition or explanatory instruction shall not be deemed a ground for reversal of the judgment unless a substantially correct definition or explanatory instruction has been requested in writing and tendered by the party complaining of the judgment.” Rule 279, T.R.C.P.; see Crutcher-Rolfs-Cummings, Inc. v. Ballard, 540 S.W.2d 380 (Tex.Civ.App. — Corpus Christi 1976, writ ref’d n. r. e.) cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2978 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1977); First State Bank and Trust Company of Edinburg v. George, 519 S.W.2d 198 (Tex.Civ.App. — Corp | 1 | 1 |
Crutcher-Rolfs-Cummings, Inc. v. Ballardgreen1 sentence1980Rule 279 states in part: “(f)ailure to submit a definition or explanatory instruction shall not be deemed a ground for reversal of the judgment unless a substantially correct definition or explanatory instruction has been requested in writing and tendered by the party complaining of the judgment.” Rule 279, T.R.C.P.; see Crutcher-Rolfs-Cummings, Inc. v. Ballard, 540 S.W.2d 380 (Tex.Civ.App. — Corpus Christi 1976, writ ref’d n. r. e.) cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2978 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1977); First State Bank and Trust Company of Edinburg v. George, 519 S.W.2d 198 (Tex.Civ.App. — Corp | 1 | 1 |
Wissman v. Bouchergreen2 sentences1979See Wissman v. Boucher, 150 Tex. 326 , 240 S.W.2d 278, 280 (1951); Hallmark Personnel of Texas, Inc. v. Franks, 562 S.W.2d 933, 936 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1978, no writ). 1979See Wissman v. Boucher, 150 Tex. 326 , 240 S.W.2d 278, 280 (1951); Hallmark Personnel of Texas, Inc. v. Franks, 562 S.W.2d 933, 936 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1978, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
Hallmark Personnel of Texas, Inc. v. Franksgreen1 sentence1979See Wissman v. Boucher, 150 Tex. 326 , 240 S.W.2d 278, 280 (1951); Hallmark Personnel of Texas, Inc. v. Franks, 562 S.W.2d 933, 936 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1978, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Great American Indemnity Co. v. Sams
green
2 sentences1946"Failure to submit a definition or explanatory instruction shall not be deemed a ground for reversal of a judgment unless a substantially correct definition or explanatory instruction has been requested in writing and tendered by the party complaining of the judgment." Great American Indemnity Co. v. Sams, 142 Tex. 121 , 176 S.W.2d 312 , 313. 1946"Failure to submit a definition or explanatory instruction shall not be deemed a ground for reversal of a judgment unless a substantially correct definition or explanatory instruction has been requested in writing and tendered by the party complaining of the judgment." Great American Indemnity Co. v. Sams, 142 Tex. 121 , 176 S.W.2d 312 , 313. | 4 | 1945–1951 |
First State Bank & Trust Co. of Edinburg v. George
green
2 sentences1980Rule 279 states in part: “(f)ailure to submit a definition or explanatory instruction shall not be deemed a ground for reversal of the judgment unless a substantially correct definition or explanatory instruction has been requested in writing and tendered by the party complaining of the judgment.” Rule 279, T.R.C.P.; see Crutcher-Rolfs-Cummings, Inc. v. Ballard, 540 S.W.2d 380 (Tex.Civ.App. — Corpus Christi 1976, writ ref’d n. r. e.) cert. denied, 433 U.S. 910 , 97 S.Ct. 2978 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1977); First State Bank and Trust Company of Edinburg v. George, 519 S.W.2d 198 (Tex.Civ.App. — Corp 1977First State Bank & Trust Company of Edinburg v. George, 519 S.W.2d 198 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1974, writ ref’d n. r. e.). | 2 | 1977–1980 |
Wenski v. Kabitzke
neutral
2 sentences1963On the contrary, compensation for what may aptly be described as ‘physical impairment’ is in appellant’s judgment proper.” Rule 279, T.R.C.P. provides in part: “ * * * Failure to submit a definition or explanatory instruction shall not be deemed a ground for reversal of the judgment unless a substantially correct definition or explanatory instruction has been requested in writing and tendered by the party complaining of the judgment.” Having failed to comply with this rule, appellant cannot now complain of the failure of the Court to define the term “physical impairment.” See Wenski v. Kabitzk 1954Wenski v. Kabitske, Tex.Civ.App., 257 S.W.2d 153 . | 2 | 1954–1963 |
Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. Craik
green
2 sentences1978The court of civil appeals reasoned the definition was not substantially correct in that: (1) the insertion of the word “or” in the definition rendered it confusing; and (2) the definition further failed to define the term “earning capacity.” Select Insurance Company contends it tendered a definition defining “partial incapacity” which was substantially correct and that similar disjunctive language has been used in defining “partial incapacity” in Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. Craik, 162 Tex. 260 , 346 S.W.2d 830 (1961), and Southern Underwriters v. Schoolcraft, 138 Tex. 323 , 15 1978The court of civil appeals reasoned the definition was not substantially correct in that: (1) the insertion of the word “or” in the definition rendered it confusing; and (2) the definition further failed to define the term “earning capacity.” Select Insurance Company contends it tendered a definition defining “partial incapacity” which was substantially correct and that similar disjunctive language has been used in defining “partial incapacity” in Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. Craik, 162 Tex. 260 , 346 S.W.2d 830 (1961), and Southern Underwriters v. Schoolcraft, 138 Tex. 323 , 15 | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Southern Underwriters v. Schoolcraft
green
2 sentences1978The court of civil appeals reasoned the definition was not substantially correct in that: (1) the insertion of the word “or” in the definition rendered it confusing; and (2) the definition further failed to define the term “earning capacity.” Select Insurance Company contends it tendered a definition defining “partial incapacity” which was substantially correct and that similar disjunctive language has been used in defining “partial incapacity” in Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. Craik, 162 Tex. 260 , 346 S.W.2d 830 (1961), and Southern Underwriters v. Schoolcraft, 138 Tex. 323 , 15 1978The court of civil appeals reasoned the definition was not substantially correct in that: (1) the insertion of the word “or” in the definition rendered it confusing; and (2) the definition further failed to define the term “earning capacity.” Select Insurance Company contends it tendered a definition defining “partial incapacity” which was substantially correct and that similar disjunctive language has been used in defining “partial incapacity” in Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. Craik, 162 Tex. 260 , 346 S.W.2d 830 (1961), and Southern Underwriters v. Schoolcraft, 138 Tex. 323 , 15 | 1 | 1978–1978 |
TEXAS EMPLOYERS'INSURANCE ASSOCIATION v. McMullin
green
1 sentence1957App., 279 S.W. 2d 699 , wr. ref. n.r.e., that lends some basis for a distinction between a case in which the issue is framed so as to place the burden of proof and one in which a separate instruction is used for that purpose, we, think the Court of Civil Appeals in the present case correctly concluded that in principle there is no distinction between the forms of issues mentioned. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Texas Employers' Insurance v. Mallard
green
2 sentences1956Ass’n v. Mallard, 143 Tex. 77 , 182 S.W.2d 1000, 1002 , the Court said: “Rule 279 applies when there is a failure to submit a definition, while Rule 274 applies when a definition is actually contained in the charge, but the complaining party objects to it because it is thought to be erroneous. 1956Ass’n v. Mallard, 143 Tex. 77 , 182 S.W.2d 1000, 1002 , the Court said: “Rule 279 applies when there is a failure to submit a definition, while Rule 274 applies when a definition is actually contained in the charge, but the complaining party objects to it because it is thought to be erroneous. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Jones
green
1 sentence1952Co. v. Jones, Tex.Civ.App., 221 S.W.2d 1010 , syl. 5; American Casualty Co. v. Jones, Tex.Civ.App., 146 S.W.2d 423 , syl. 5, 6. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Talley Transfer Co. v. Cones
green
1 sentence1952“Failure to submit a definition or explanatory instruction shall not be deemed a ground for reversal of the judgment unless a substantially correct definition or explanatory instruction has been requested in writing and tendered by the party complaining of the judgment.” Rule 279, Vernon’s Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; Hooks v. Orton, Tex.Civ.App., 30 S.W.2d 681 , syl. 10, 11; Talley Transfer Co. v. Cones, Tex.Civ.App., 216 S.W.2d 604 , syl. 4; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
American Casualty Co. v. Jones
neutral
1 sentence1952Co. v. Jones, Tex.Civ.App., 221 S.W.2d 1010 , syl. 5; American Casualty Co. v. Jones, Tex.Civ.App., 146 S.W.2d 423 , syl. 5, 6. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Hooks v. Orton
neutral
1 sentence1952“Failure to submit a definition or explanatory instruction shall not be deemed a ground for reversal of the judgment unless a substantially correct definition or explanatory instruction has been requested in writing and tendered by the party complaining of the judgment.” Rule 279, Vernon’s Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; Hooks v. Orton, Tex.Civ.App., 30 S.W.2d 681 , syl. 10, 11; Talley Transfer Co. v. Cones, Tex.Civ.App., 216 S.W.2d 604 , syl. 4; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Russell Const. Co. v. Ponder
green
2 sentences1945Great American Indemnity Co. v. Sams, 142 Tex. 121 , 176 S.W.2d 312 ; Russell Const. Co. v. Ponder, Tex.Civ.App., 182 S.W.2d 857 , affirmed by Sup.Ct., 186 S.W.2d 233 . 1945Great American Indemnity Co. v. Sams, 142 Tex. 121 , 176 S.W.2d 312 ; Russell Const. Co. v. Ponder, Tex.Civ.App. 182 S.W.2d 857 , affirmed by Sup.Ct., 186 S.W.2d 233 . | 1 | 1945–1945 |
Russell Construction Co. v. Ponder
green
2 sentences1945Great American Indemnity Co. v. Sams, 142 Tex. 121 , 176 S.W.2d 312 ; Russell Const. Co. v. Ponder, Tex.Civ.App., 182 S.W.2d 857 , affirmed by Sup.Ct., 186 S.W.2d 233 . 1945Great American Indemnity Co. v. Sams, 142 Tex. 121 , 176 S.W.2d 312 ; Russell Const. Co. v. Ponder, Tex.Civ.App. 182 S.W.2d 857 , affirmed by Sup.Ct., 186 S.W.2d 233 . | 1 | 1945–1945 |