invariable rule in Texas

2015Clearing one’s name “It is a settled and invariable principle, that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 147 , 2 L.

2015Clearing one’s name “It is a settled and invariable principle, that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 147 , 2 L.

2004First, with respect to noscitur a sociis, “[t]hat a word may be known by the company it keeps is ... not an invariable rule, for the word may have a character of its own not to be submerged by its association.” Russell Motor Car Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 514, 519 , 58 Ct.Cl. 708 , 43 S.Ct. 428 , 67 L.Ed. 778 (1923).

1985The opinion of the Supreme Court specifically addressed the Texas death penalty scheme: “That Gregg and Proffitt did not establish a constitutional requirement of proportionality review is made clearer by Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 , 96 S.Ct. 2950 , 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976), decided the same day.

1985The opinion of the Supreme Court specifically addressed the Texas death penalty scheme: “That Gregg and Proffitt did not establish a constitutional requirement of proportionality review is made clearer by Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 , 96 S.Ct. 2950 , 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976), decided the same day.

1985In Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37 , 104 S.Ct. 871 , 79 L.Ed.2d 29 (1984), the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment does not require as an invariable rule in every case that a state appellate court, before it affirms a death sentence, compare the sentence in the case before it with the penalties imposed in similar cases if requested to do so by the defendant.

1985In Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37 , 104 S.Ct. 871 , 79 L.Ed.2d 29 (1984), the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment does not require as an invariable rule in every case that a state appellate court, before it affirms a death sentence, compare the sentence in the case before it with the penalties imposed in similar cases if requested to do so by the defendant.

1982It was not intended to be `an invariable rule,' and is not in complete harmony with Dixon v. State, 128 Crim [Tex.Cr.R.] 584, 83 SW2d 328 , which is an exception.

1982It was not intended to be ‘an invariable rule,’ and is not in complete harmony with Dixon v. State, 128 Crim [Tex.Cr.R.] 584, 83 SW2d 328 , which is an exception.

1960App., 23 S.W. 2d 287 . *192 Ordinarily the collection costs agreed upon by the parties to the instrument are awarded to those who are entitled to recover, and are adjudged against those who are obligated to pay, the principal and interest owing thereon, but this is not an invariable rule.

1946In Hooks v. Bridgewater, 111 Tex. 122, 126 , 229 S.W. 1114, 1116 , 15 A.L.R. 216 , Chief Justice Phillips, speaking for the court, held that from an early date it had been the invariable rule of the Supreme Court that in order to relieve a parol sale of land from the operation of the Statute of Frauds, three things were necessary: (1) Payment of the consideration, whether it be in money or services. (2) Possession by the vendee. (3) The making of valuable and permanent improvements on the land, or without such improvements, such facts as would make the transaction a fraud upon the purchasers i

1946In Hooks v. Bridgewater, 111 Tex. 122, 126 , 229 S.W. 1114, 1116 , 15 A.L.R. 216 , Chief Justice Phillips, speaking for the court, held that from an early date it had been the invariable rule of the Supreme Court that in order to relieve a parol sale of land from the operation of the Statute of Frauds, three things were necessary: (1) Payment of the consideration, whether it be in money or services. (2) Possession by the vendee. (3) The making of valuable and permanent improvements on the land, or without such improvements, such facts as would make the transaction a fraud upon the purchasers i

1934Plaintiff’s remedy in such case would be to take leave to file an amended original petition and include in it the omitted facts. * * * If, however, instead of amending the original petition the plaintiff undertook to cure its' defects by alleging the omitted matter in a supplemental petition the court could- not propei’ly consider such matter in connection with the original petition, and would sustain the demurrer to the original petition.” Again the same authority at the same place says: “It may be stated as an invariable rule that defects in a pleading of any class should be cured by an amen

1934Plaintiff’s remedy in such case would be to take leave to file an amended original petition and include in it the omitted facts. * * * If, however, instead of amending the original petition the plaintiff undertook to cure its' defects by alleging the omitted matter in a supplemental petition the court could- not propei’ly consider such matter in connection with the original petition, and would sustain the demurrer to the original petition.” Again the same authority at the same place says: “It may be stated as an invariable rule that defects in a pleading of any class should be cured by an amen

1934Co. v. Camp, 64 Tex. 521 ; Mann v. Trinity Farm Co. (Tex. Civ.

1931Rep., 181 , 202 S. W., 322 , it is stated that the general rule may be stated that the filing of an amended motion for new -trial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and unless error is shown of a substantial nature, this court will not revise the ruling, but this is not the invariable rule.

1919Maddox v. Fenner, 79 Tex. 279 , 15 S. W. 237 ; Wyatt v. Poster, 79 Tex. 413 , 15 S. W. 679 .

1919Maddox v. Fenner, 79 Tex. 279 , 15 S. W. 237 ; Wyatt v. Poster, 79 Tex. 413 , 15 S. W. 679 .

1919Maddox v. Fenner, 79 Tex. 279 , 15 S. W. 237 ; Wyatt v. Poster, 79 Tex. 413 , 15 S. W. 679 .

1919Maddox v. Fenner, 79 Tex. 279 , 15 S. W. 237 ; Wyatt v. Poster, 79 Tex. 413 , 15 S. W. 679 .

1909It was held in this State as early as the case of Snoddy v. Cage, 5 Texas, 106 , in a great opinion by probably the most distinguished and learned man that ever sat on any court in Texas, that “The enactment of a law in terms similar to the provisions of a statute of a foreign country, does not involve the adoption of the construction which the courts of that country may have given to the provisions of the statute.” In the course of the opinion he says: “It is urged that the exception operates as well against persons coining from abroad or removing to the country, as against citizens or reside

1890A person not actually engaged in the business as a principal, and not holding himself out as a partner, cannot be held for debts incurred in the business . . . unless in virtue of some contract, express or implied, on his part, in legal effect creating, as between him and the persons actually carrying on the business, the relation of principal and agent.” [Wild v. Davenport (N. J.), 7 Atl.