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.
13 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1949–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
McWilliams v. Musegreen2 sentences2021See McWilliams, 300 S.W.2d at 113 (the statutory right-of-way “is subject to the qualification that a person entitled to claim such right will exercise it with proper regard for the safety of himself and others[]”). 2019However, “a statutory right-of-way rule is not absolute but relative, and is subject to the qualification that a person entitled to claim such right will exercise it with proper regard for the safety of himself and others.” McWilliams v. Muse, 300 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tex. 1957) (citing Lewis v. Martin, 120 S.W.2d 910, 913 (Tex. Civ. | 4 | 7 |
Lewis v. Martingreen2 sentences2019However, “a statutory right-of-way rule is not absolute but relative, and is subject to the qualification that a person entitled to claim such right will exercise it with proper regard for the safety of himself and others.” McWilliams v. Muse, 300 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tex. 1957) (citing Lewis v. Martin, 120 S.W.2d 910, 913 (Tex. Civ. 1954In the case of Checker Cab Co. v. Wagner, Tex.Civ.App., 199 S.W.2d 791, 792 , the rule is well stated in the following language: “ ‘Although there is conflict of authority in other jurisdictions (see Annotations 89 A.L.R. 838 ; 136 A.L.R. 1497 ) the weight of authority and the settled rule in this State is that ‘The right of way rule is not absolute but relative, and subject to the qualification that a person entitled to claim that right will exercise it with proper regard for the safety of himself and others.’ Lewis v. Martin, Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 910, 912 , wr. ref.; Sherwin-Williams Co. | 3 | 5 |
Stanley v. Southern Pacific Companygreen1 sentence1986As Porter points out, our Supreme Court has definitively stated, “A statutory right-of-way rule is not absolute but relative, and is subject to the qualification that a person entitled to claim such right will exercise it with proper regard for the safety of himself and others.” McWilliams v. Muse, 157 Tex. 109 , 300 S.W.2d 643, 645 (1957); see also Stanley v. Southern Pacific Company, 466 S.W.2d 548, 553 (Tex.1971). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Olsengreen2 sentences1971State v. Olsen, 360 S.W.2d 398, 400 (Tex.Sup., 1962), wherein the court reviewed the authorities extensively. 1971State v. Olsen, 360 S.W.2d 398, 400 (Tex.Sup., 1962), wherein the court reviewed the authorities extensively. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Checker Cab Co. v. Wagner
neutral
2 sentences1954In the case of Checker Cab Co. v. Wagner, Tex.Civ.App., 199 S.W.2d 791, 792 , the rule is well stated in the following language: “ ‘Although there is conflict of authority in other jurisdictions (see Annotations 89 A.L.R. 838 ; 136 A.L.R. 1497 ) the weight of authority and the settled rule in this State is that ‘The right of way rule is not absolute but relative, and subject to the qualification that a person entitled to claim that right will exercise it with proper regard for the safety of himself and others.’ Lewis v. Martin, Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 910, 912 , wr. ref.; Sherwin-Williams Co. 1949In the case of Checker Cab Co. v. Wagner, Tex.Civ.App., 199 S.W.2d 791, 792 , the rule is well stated in the following language: “Although there is conflict of authority in other jurisdictions (see Annotations 89 A.L.R. 838 ; 136 A.L.R. 1497 ) the weight of authority and the settled rule in this State is that ‘The right of way rule is not absolute but relative, and subject to the qualification that a person entitled to claim that right will exercise it with proper regard for the safety of himself and others.’ Lewis v. Martin, Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 910, 912 , Wr. | 2 | 1949–1954 |
Sherwin-Williams Co. of Texas v. Delahoussaye
green
2 sentences1954In the case of Checker Cab Co. v. Wagner, Tex.Civ.App., 199 S.W.2d 791, 792 , the rule is well stated in the following language: “ ‘Although there is conflict of authority in other jurisdictions (see Annotations 89 A.L.R. 838 ; 136 A.L.R. 1497 ) the weight of authority and the settled rule in this State is that ‘The right of way rule is not absolute but relative, and subject to the qualification that a person entitled to claim that right will exercise it with proper regard for the safety of himself and others.’ Lewis v. Martin, Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 910, 912 , wr. ref.; Sherwin-Williams Co. 1949Ref.; Sherwin-Williams Co. of Texas v. Delahoussaye, Tex.Civ.App., 124 S.W.2d 870 , Wr. | 2 | 1949–1954 |
Smith v. Chase
green
1 sentence1968The right-of-way findings do not, of themselves, relieve plaintiff of duty, Smith v. Chase, Tex.Civ.App., 405 S.W.2d 450, 452 , writ ref. n. r. e., and cases cited; and the findings are therefore not inconsistent. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Dembicer v. Pawtucket Cabinet & Builders Finish Co.
green
2 sentences1958In its opinion the court quoted from Dembicer v. Pawtucket Cabinet & Builders Finish Co., Inc., 58 R.I. 451 , 193 A. 622 , where it was said [ 120 S.W.2d 912 ]: “ ‘The right of way rule is not absolute but relative, and subject to the *882 qualification that a person entitled to claim that right will exercise it with proper regard for the safety of himself and others. 1958In its opinion the court quoted from Dembicer v. Pawtucket Cabinet & Builders Finish Co., Inc., 58 R.I. 451 , 193 A. 622 , where it was said [ 120 S.W.2d 912 ]: “ ‘The right of way rule is not absolute but relative, and subject to the *882 qualification that a person entitled to claim that right will exercise it with proper regard for the safety of himself and others. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
El Paso City Lines, Inc. v. Prieto
green
1 sentence1955The rule there stated is: “ ‘Although there is conflict of authority in other jurisdictions (see Annotations 89 A.L.R. 838 ; 136 A.L.R. 1497 ) the weight of authority and the settled rule in this State is that “The right of way rule is not absolute but ' relative, and subject to the qualification that a person entitled to claim that right will exercise it with proper regard for the' safety of himself and others.” ’ ” To the same effect is the holding of this court in El Paso City Lines, Inc. v. Prieto, Tex.Civ.App., 191 S.W.2d 59 . | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Todd v. La Grone
neutral
1 sentence1954Tidy Didy Wash v. Barnett, Tex.Civ.App., 246 S.W.2d 303 ; Todd v. La Grone, Tex.Civ.App., 234 S.W.2d 99 ; Blunt v. Berning, Tex.Civ.App., 211 S.W.2d'773; Edison v. Perry-Foley Funeral Home, Tex.Civ.App., 132 S.W.2d 282 ; Lewis v. Martin, Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 910 . | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Tidy Didy Wash, Inc. v. Barnett
green
1 sentence1954Tidy Didy Wash v. Barnett, Tex.Civ.App., 246 S.W.2d 303 ; Todd v. La Grone, Tex.Civ.App., 234 S.W.2d 99 ; Blunt v. Berning, Tex.Civ.App., 211 S.W.2d'773; Edison v. Perry-Foley Funeral Home, Tex.Civ.App., 132 S.W.2d 282 ; Lewis v. Martin, Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 910 . | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Edson v. Perry-Foley Funeral Home
neutral
1 sentence1954Tidy Didy Wash v. Barnett, Tex.Civ.App., 246 S.W.2d 303 ; Todd v. La Grone, Tex.Civ.App., 234 S.W.2d 99 ; Blunt v. Berning, Tex.Civ.App., 211 S.W.2d'773; Edison v. Perry-Foley Funeral Home, Tex.Civ.App., 132 S.W.2d 282 ; Lewis v. Martin, Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 910 . | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Cruse v. Chacon
neutral
1 sentence1954In the case of Checker Cab Co. v. Wagner, Tex.Civ.App., 199 S.W.2d 791, 792 , the rule is well stated in the following language: “ ‘Although there is conflict of authority in other jurisdictions (see Annotations 89 A.L.R. 838 ; 136 A.L.R. 1497 ) the weight of authority and the settled rule in this State is that ‘The right of way rule is not absolute but relative, and subject to the qualification that a person entitled to claim that right will exercise it with proper regard for the safety of himself and others.’ Lewis v. Martin, Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 910, 912 , wr. ref.; Sherwin-Williams Co. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
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.