noted rule in Texas

2015See Butcher, 454 S.W.3d at 19 . 5 Appellant also argues that the jury’s finding was not supported by legally or factually sufficient evidence because he voluntarily released complainant.

2015See Butcher, 454 S.W.3d at 19 . 5 Appellant also argues that the jury's finding was not supported by legally or factually sufficient evidence because he voluntarily released complainant.

2024The Court noted that the error is reversible “unless the appellate court is ‘reasonably 12 certain that the jury was not significantly influenced by issues erroneously submitted to it.’ ” Id. at 227–28 (emphasis added) (quoting Braun v. Flynt, 731 F.2d 1205, 1206 (5th Cir. 1984)).

2024The Court noted that the error is reversible “unless the appellate court is ‘reasonably 12 certain that the jury was not significantly influenced by issues erroneously submitted to it.’ ” Id. at 227–28 (emphasis added) (quoting Braun v. Flynt, 731 F.2d 1205, 1206 (5th Cir. 1984)).

2015Id. (“Therefore, Mrs. Rodriguez’ suit for loss of consortium is barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act unless she can establish that the injury caused her husband was intentional.”); see also Reed Tool Co. v. Copelin, 610 S.W.2d 736 , 738– 39 (Tex. 1980).

2015Id. (“Therefore, Mrs. Rodriguez’ suit for loss of consortium is barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act unless she can establish that the injury caused her husband was intentional.”); see also Reed Tool Co. v. Copelin, 610 S.W.2d 736 , 738- 39 (Tex.1980).

2015See Krenek, 787 S.W.2d at 569 (citing Rio Bravo Oil Co. v. Weed, 121 Tex. 427, 443 , 50 S.W.2d 1080 , 1086–87 (1932); *78 Couch v. Texas & Pac.

2001See Krenek, 787 S.W.2d at 569 (citing Rio Bravo Oil Co. v. Weed, 121 Tex. 427, 443 , 50 S.W.2d 1080, 1086-87 (1932); Couch v. Texas & Pac.

2015See id. (where the court noted factors which indicated any error did not affect a substantial right).

2015See id. (where the court noted factors which indicated any error did not affect a substantial right).

2015Id. (“Therefore, Mrs. Rodriguez’ suit for loss of consortium is barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act unless she can establish that the injury caused her husband was intentional.”); see also Reed Tool Co. v. Copelin, 610 S.W.2d 736 , 738– 39 (Tex. 1980).

2015Id. (“Therefore, Mrs. Rodriguez’ suit for loss of consortium is barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act unless she can establish that the injury caused her husband was intentional.”); see also Reed Tool Co. v. Copelin, 610 S.W.2d 736 , 738- 39 (Tex.1980).

2015See Krenek, 787 S.W.2d at 569 (citing Rio Bravo Oil Co. v. Weed, 121 Tex. 427, 443 , 50 S.W.2d 1080 , 1086–87 (1932); *78 Couch v. Texas & Pac.

2015See Krenek, 787 S.W.2d at 569 (citing Rio Bravo Oil Co. v. Weed, 121 Tex. 427, 443 , 50 S.W.2d 1080 , 1086–87 (1932); *78 Couch v. Texas & Pac.

2012In Duncan Land & Exploration, Inc. v. Littlepage, 984 S.W.2d 318, 323 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998, pet. denied), Duncan, the well operator, sued his lessor for slander of title for wrongfully claiming a reversion of the leasehold.

2012In Duncan -5- 04-11-00336-CV Land & Exploration, Inc. v. Littlepage, 984 S.W.2d 318, 323 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, pet. denied), Duncan, the well operator, sued his lessor for slander of title for wrongfully claiming a reversion of the leasehold.

2008See id. at 640-41 .

2008See id. at 640–41.

2004The court noted that the clause reflects the parties’ intent to bar later disputes related to the underlying agreements, but “notably fails to mention or refer to prior representations.” Id. (citing U.S. Quest Ltd. v. Kimmons, 228 F.3d 399, 403 (5th Cir.2000) (holding that merger clause in contract superseding all “prior or contemporaneous agreements, communications or understandings, whether written or unwritten” was a valid disclaimer of reliance upon alleged oral representation that the parties would enter into a second written contract)).

2003The court noted that the clause reflects the parties = intent to bar later disputes related to the underlying agreements, but A notably fails to mention or refer to prior representations. @ Id. (citing U.S. Quest Ltd. v. Kimmons , 228 F.3d 399, 403 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that merger clause in contract superseding all A prior or contemporaneous agreements, communications or understandings, whether written or unwritten @ was a valid disclaimer of reliance upon alleged oral representation that the parties would enter into a second written contract)).

1997Conversely, under the in forma pauperis statute, judges have the authority to dismiss a claim based on an "indisputably meritless legal theory," and the "unusual power to pierce the veil of the complainant's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless." The Court concluded, "When a complaint raises an arguable question of law which the district court ultimately finds is correctly resolved against the plaintiff, dismissal on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds is appropriate, but dismissal on the basis of frivolousness is not." Id . at 328; see also Eason v. Th

1997Conversely, under the in forma pauperis statute, judges have the authority to dismiss a claim based on an “indisputably meritless legal theory,” and the “unusual power to pierce the veil of the complainant’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” The Court concluded, “When a complaint raises an arguable question of law which the district court ultimately finds is correctly resolved against the plaintiff, dismissal on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds is appropriate, but dismissal on the basis of frivolousness is not.” Id. at 328 , 109 S.Ct. at 1833 ;

2016Id.

2014See id.

2010Id. , 2010 WL 571974, at *1 (citing Tex. Loc.

2010Id. , 2010 WL 571974, at *1 (citing Tex. Loc.

2026The right to question a venire panel is balanced with the trial court’s right to control voir dire “in the interest of conducting an orderly and expeditious trial.” Ex parte McKay, 819 S.W.2d at 482 . 2 The trial court noted that defense counsel had been conducting voir dire for more than an hour. 3 “These two principles—the right of counsel to question veniremembers and the right of the trial court to control the voir dire and impose reasonable restrictions—coexist and must be harmonized.” Ratliff v. State, 690 S.W.2d 597, 599 (Tex. Crim.