93 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1928–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Union Oil Co. of California v. Richardgreen2 sentences2002“The only function of an explanatory instruction in the charge is to aid and assist the jury in answering issues submitted.” Union Oil Co. v. Richard, 536 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex. Civ. 2002"The only function of an explanatory instruction in the charge is to aid and assist the jury in answering issues submitted." Union Oil Co. v. Richard, 536 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex. Civ. | 8 | 10 |
DeLeon v. Pickensgreen2 sentences2003See DeLeon v. Pickens, 933 S.W.2d 286, 292 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1996, writ denied). 2003See DeLeon v. Pickens, 933 S.W.2d 286, 292 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1996, writ denied). | 4 | 4 |
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. O'Merrygreen2 sentences1997“The only function of an explanatory instruction in the court’s charge is to aid and assist the jury in answering the issues submitted.” Francis v. Cogdell, 803 S.W.2d 868, 871 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no writ)(citing Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. v. O’Merry, 727 S.W.2d 596, 601 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ)). 1994Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Ry. v. O’Merry, 727 S.W.2d 596, 601 (Tex.App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ). | 3 | 3 |
Plainsman Trading Co. v. Crewsgreen2 sentences1999See Plainsman Trading Co. v. Crews, 898 S.W.2d 786, 791 (Tex.1995); Munoz v. Berne Group, In., 919 S.W.2d 470, 471-72 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no writ). 1998See Plainsman Trading Co. v. Crews, 898 S.W.2d 786, 791 (Tex.1995); Munoz v. Berne Group, Inc., 919 S.W.2d 470, 471-72 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no writ). | 2 | 2 |
Munoz v. Berne Group, Inc.green2 sentences1999See Plainsman Trading Co. v. Crews, 898 S.W.2d 786, 791 (Tex.1995); Munoz v. Berne Group, In., 919 S.W.2d 470, 471-72 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no writ). 1998See Plainsman Trading Co. v. Crews, 898 S.W.2d 786, 791 (Tex.1995); Munoz v. Berne Group, Inc., 919 S.W.2d 470, 471-72 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no writ). | 2 | 2 |
Sanders v. Davilagreen2 sentences1997Line Enterprises, Inc. v. Hooks & Matteson Enterprises, Inc., 659 S.W.2d 113, 117 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1983, no writ); Sanders v. Davila, 593 S.W.2d 127, 130 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.). 1988To be proper an instruction must be correct [Sanders v. Davila, 593 S.W.2d 127, 129 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1979, writ ref d n.r.e.) ], since an instruction that misstates the law cannot be expected to produce a correct verdict. | 2 | 2 |
Line Enterprises, Inc. v. Hooks & Matteson Enterprise, Inc.green2 sentences1984The error amounts to reversible error, since an explanatory instruction that misstates the law cannot be expected to produce a correct verdict, Line Enterprises v. Hooks & Matteson, 659 S.W.2d 113, 117 (Tex.App.Amarillo 1983, no writ), unless it can be said that, as the Brooks contend in subpart C of their first point, there is no evidence of exclusive possession, or that, as Blue Ridge responds, the evidence conclusively establishes the Brooks' exclusive possession. 1984The error amounts to reversible error, since an explanatory instruction that misstates the law cannot be expected to produce a correct verdict, Line Enterprises v. Hooks & Matteson, 659 S.W.2d 113, 117 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1983, no writ), unless it can be said that, as the Brooks contend in subpart C of their first point, there is no evidence of exclusive possession, or that, as Blue Ridge responds, the evidence conclusively establishes the Brooks’ exclusive possession. | 2 | 2 |
Board of Regents v. Denton Construction Co.green2 sentences1988Board of Regents of North Texas State University v. Denton Construction Co., 652 S.W.2d 588, 595 (Tex.App—Fort Worth 1983, writ refd n.r.e.); Hirdler v. Boyd, 702 S.W.2d at 730 . 1985Board of Regents of North Texas State University v. Denton Construction Co., 652 S.W.2d 588, 595 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1983, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 2 | 2 |
Texas Power & Light Co. v. Barnhillgreen2 sentences1987Although the court failed to set forth the complained of special issue, the special issue in Texas Power & Light Co. v. Barnhill, 639 S.W.2d 331, 334-35 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 1982, writ ref d n.r.e.), also appears to have been submitted with neither a separate explanatory instruction nor an explanatory instruction included in the issue. 1987Although the court failed to set forth the complained of special issue, the special issue in Texas Power & Light Co. v. Barnhill, 639 S.W.2d 331, 334-35 (Tex.App.Texarkana 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.), also appears to have been submitted with neither a separate explanatory instruction nor an explanatory instruction included in the issue. | 2 | 2 |
Harris v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2007Harris, 765 S.W.2d at 801 . 2006Harris , 765 S.W.2d at 801 . | 1 | 6 |
Donnelley Marketing v. Lionel Sosa, Inc.green2 sentences2015Donnelley Marketing v. Lionel Sosa, Inc., 716 S.W.2d 598 at 602 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1986); Ryan Mortg. 1989Donnelley, 716 S.W.2d at 602 ; Ryan, 650 S.W.2d at 933 ; Tex.R.Civ.P. 278. | 1 | 2 |
Riggs v. Sentry Insurancegreen2 sentences1996Riggs v. Sentry Ins., 821 S.W.2d 701, 705 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, writ denied). 1994Riggs, 821 S.W.2d at 704-05 . | 1 | 2 |
Lively Exploration Co. v. Valero Transmission Co.green2 sentences1992See Lively Exploration Co., 751 S.W.2d at 653 . 1990Lively Exploration, 751 S.W.2d at 653 , citing Board of Regents of N. Texas State Univ. v. Denton Constr. | 1 | 2 |
First State Bank & Trust Co. of Edinburg v. Georgegreen2 sentences1989First State Bank and Trust Co. v. George, 519 S.W.2d 198, 207 (Tex.Civ.App. — Corpus Christi 1975, writ ref d n.r.e.). 1980In First State Bank & Trust Co. of Edinburg v. George, 519 S.W.2d 198 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1975, writ ref’d n. r. e.), we said: “The only function of an explanatory instruction in the charge is to aid and assist the jury in answering the issues submitted. | 1 | 2 |
Scott v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.green2 sentences1986Id. at 279 . 1979In Scott v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co., 572 S.W.2d 273, 280 (Tex.1978), the Court pointed out that when “Act of God” is raised by the pleadings and the evidence, then the defendant is entitled to an explanatory instruction which “should focus the effect of the concept on the relevant issues that are to be considered, but without reference to the result thereof.” These principles are equally applicable to unavoidable accident. | 1 | 2 |
Jones v. McCoygreen2 sentences1986Jones v. McCoy, 466 S.W.2d 667, 669 (Tex.Civ.App. —Eastland 1971, no writ). 1980Jones v. McCoy, 466 S.W.2d 667 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1971, no writ). | 1 | 2 |
Francis v. Cogdellgreen2 sentences1997“The only function of an explanatory instruction in the court’s charge is to aid and assist the jury in answering the issues submitted.” Francis v. Cogdell, 803 S.W.2d 868, 871 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no writ)(citing Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. v. O’Merry, 727 S.W.2d 596, 601 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ)). 1997“If an instruction might aid the jury in answering the issues presented to them, or if there is any support in the evidence for an instruction, the instruction is properly given.” Francis, 803 S.W.2d at 871 ; see also Tex.R. | 1 | 1 |
| Wakefield v. Bevlygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dorman v. Langlinaisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mader v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Zuniga v. Zunigagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lackeygreen | 1 | 1 |
| French v. Brodskygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hundere v. Tracy & Cookgreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Pasadena v. State Ex Rel. City of Houstongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Blackwell v. Scottgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
American Bankers Insurance Co. of Florida v. Caruth
green
2 sentences2018Id. 2014Id. *646 If an instruction might aid the jury in answering the issues presented to them, or if there is any support in the evidence for an instruction, the instruction is proper. | 6 | 2005–2018 |
Rendon v. TEXAS EMP. INS. ASS'N
green
2 sentences1990Ass’n., 599 S.W.2d 890 , 896 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.), this Court held that the only function of an explanatory instruction is to aid and assist the jury in answering the issues submitted by the court. 1986Rendon v. Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, 599 S.W.2d 890 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 6 | 1982–1990 |
M.N. Dannenbaum, Inc. v. Brummerhop
green
2 sentences2004Dannebaum, 840 S.W.2d at 631 . 2004Dannebaum , 840 S.W.2d at 631 . | 4 | 2002–2004 |
Ed Rachal Foundation v. D'UNGER
green
2 sentences2006D’Unger, 117 S.W.3d at 364 . 2006D'Unger, 117 S.W.3d at 364 . | 2 | 2006–2006 |
James v. Kloos
green
2 sentences2003Id. 2003Id. | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Johnson v. Zurich General Accident & Liability Ins. Co.
green
2 sentences1980This question was decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Johnson v. Zurich General Accident and Liability Insurance Company, 146 Tex. 232 , 205 S.W.2d 353 (1947). 1961Co., Ltd., 146 Tex. 232 , 205 S.W.2d 353 , the Supreme Court held that prior to the adoption of Rule 277, T.R.C.P., it was settled that, in a case submitted to the jury on special issues, it was error for the trial court to give in the charge to the jury general instructions on the law, and that the rule placed no additional requirement upon the trial judge in preparing his charge, but its effect is to prevent a reversal on the sole ground that an explanatory instruction or definition amounts to a general charge. | 2 | 1961–1980 |
Johnson v. Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance
neutral
2 sentences1980This question was decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Johnson v. Zurich General Accident and Liability Insurance Company, 146 Tex. 232 , 205 S.W.2d 353 (1947). 1961Co., Ltd., 146 Tex. 232 , 205 S.W.2d 353 , the Supreme Court held that prior to the adoption of Rule 277, T.R.C.P., it was settled that, in a case submitted to the jury on special issues, it was error for the trial court to give in the charge to the jury general instructions on the law, and that the rule placed no additional requirement upon the trial judge in preparing his charge, but its effect is to prevent a reversal on the sole ground that an explanatory instruction or definition amounts to a general charge. | 2 | 1961–1980 |
Dallas Railway & Terminal Co. v. Ector
green
2 sentences1955He further testified that, in his opinion, the collision in which Mrs. Green was involved definitely could “temporarily increase her nervous symptoms, and aggravate her previous nervousness.” The court, in the issue itself, confined respondent’s recovery to “ * * * damages * * * which she * * * will * * * sustain * * * as a direct and proximate result of the negligence, if any, of the defendant herein?" In the explanatory instruction accompanying this issue the trial court again limited respondent’s damages by the last sentence of such instruction, reading: “You will not allow any sum of money 1955He further testified that, in his opinion, the collision in which Mrs. Green was involved definitely could “temporarily increase her nervous symptoms, and aggravate her previous nervousness.” The court, in the issue itself, confined respondent’s recovery to “ * * * damages * * * which she * * * will * * * sustain * * * as a direct and proximate result of the negligence, if any, of the defendant herein?" In the explanatory instruction accompanying this issue the trial court again limited respondent’s damages by the last sentence of such instruction, reading: “You will not allow any sum of money | 2 | 1955–1955 |
Grenier v. Joe Camp, Inc.
green
1 sentence2002Tex.R.Civ.P. 277; Grenier, 900 S.W.2d at 850 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Smith v. Westall
green
1 sentence2002An explanatory clause followed which stated: “This conveyance is meant to convey and carry with it every possible interest that I now have or may have to any property in this county, or any other county in the" state of Texas.” The court said that: “The description in the deed was sufficient, and it passed all lands in the state vested by inheritance in Westall at its date.” Id. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Hatcher v. Range
green
2 sentences1996Nonetheless, we view the holding in Lin-ney v. Matón, as an aberration in the jurisprudence of this State, such that our Supreme Court, upon reflection, viewed the holding as regrettable in McQueen v. Fulgham, 27 Tex. 463 (1864) 7 and in Hatcher v. Range, 98 Tex. 85 , 81 S.W. 289 (1904). 1996Nonetheless, we view the holding in Lin-ney v. Matón, as an aberration in the jurisprudence of this State, such that our Supreme Court, upon reflection, viewed the holding as regrettable in McQueen v. Fulgham, 27 Tex. 463 (1864) 7 and in Hatcher v. Range, 98 Tex. 85 , 81 S.W. 289 (1904). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
McQueen v. Fulgham
green
2 sentences1996Nonetheless, we view the holding in Linney v. Maton , as an aberration in the jurisprudence of this State, such that our Supreme Court, upon reflection, viewed the holding as regrettable in McQueen v. Fulgham, 27 Tex. 463 (1864) [7] and in Hatcher v. Range, 98 Tex. 85 , 81 S.W. 289 (1904). 1996Nonetheless, we view the holding in Lin-ney v. Matón, as an aberration in the jurisprudence of this State, such that our Supreme Court, upon reflection, viewed the holding as regrettable in McQueen v. Fulgham, 27 Tex. 463 (1864) 7 and in Hatcher v. Range, 98 Tex. 85 , 81 S.W. 289 (1904). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Ryan Mortgage Investors v. Fleming-Wood
green
1 sentence1989Donnelley, 716 S.W.2d at 602 ; Ryan, 650 S.W.2d at 933 ; Tex.R.Civ.P. 278. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Hirdler v. Boyd green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Republic National Life Insurance Co. v. Heyward green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Charter Builders v. Durham green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Norman v. First Bank & Trust, Bryan green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Seideneck v. Cal Bayreuther Associates green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| DeBose v. Trapani green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Pittsburg Coca-Cola Bottling Works of Pittsburg v. Ponder green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| DeBose v. Trapani green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| City of Houston v. Riggins green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Larson v. Ellison green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Mobil Chemical Company v. Bell green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Atkinson v. Jackson Bros. green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Deviney v. McLendon green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Levermann v. Cartall green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Paynter v. Janca green | 1 | 1962–1962 |
| Neal v. Medcalf green | 1 | 1962–1962 |
| Alexander v. Alexander neutral | 1 | 1962–1962 |
| Swearingen v. Brown green | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| McNatt v. Coker neutral | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| TEXAS EMPLOYERS'INSURANCE ASSOCIATION v. McMullin green | 1 | 1956–1956 |
| Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. Brock green | 1 | 1955–1955 |
| Boaz v. White's Auto Stores green | 1 | 1945–1945 |
| Southern Surety Co. v. Diercks green | 1 | 1928–1928 |
| Federal Surety Co. v. Waite neutral | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.