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.
12 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1921–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. Martinezgreen1 sentence2015See Martinez, 800 S.W.2d at 334 (appellant’s statements to trial court construed as agreement or stipulation within the contemplation of rule 11 of the rules of civil procedure, and appellant failed to obtain leave of court to withdraw the stipulation). | 1 | 1 |
Stafford v. Stategreen1 sentence1997See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 , 511 & n. 6 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (holding that an appellant is afforded an opportunity to respond to an An-ders brief, and if arguable grounds are apparent, the court of appeals must then abate the appeal and remand the case to the trial *341 court with orders to appoint other counsel or allow the appellant to proceed pro se if he so desires.) For reasons that follow, we hold that appellant’s pro se response is not a brief within the contemplation of rule 74. | 1 | 1 |
Galitz v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Cf. Padgett v. State, 764 S.W.2d 239, 240 (Tex.Crim.App.1989); Galitz v. State, 617 S.W.2d 949, 951 (Tex.Crim.App.1981) (decided under proviso to article 44.02, predecessor to rule 40(b)(1)). | 1 | 1 |
Padgett v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Cf. Padgett v. State, 764 S.W.2d 239, 240 (Tex.Crim.App.1989); Galitz v. State, 617 S.W.2d 949, 951 (Tex.Crim.App.1981) (decided under proviso to article 44.02, predecessor to rule 40(b)(1)). | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Hernandezgreen1 sentence1987We have held that the “manifest purpose” of the rules is “to eliminate jurisdictional pitfalls that result in dismissals on technical grounds.” Miller v. Hernandez, 708 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1986, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
Millers Mutual Fire Insurance v. Wilkirsongreen2 sentences1943See Millers Mut., etc., Co. v. Wilkirson, 124 Tex. 312 ; 77 S.W.2d 1035 , 1036 and Settegast v. Martin, Tex.Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d 299, 301 . 1943See Millers Mut., etc., Co. v. Wilkirson, 124 Tex. 312 ; 77 S.W.2d 1035 , 1036 and Settegast v. Martin, Tex.Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d 299, 301 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sanders v. Bridges
neutral
2 sentences1921Smith v. Bank, 74 Tex. 541 , 12 S. W. 221 , cited in the majority opinion, holds: “An admission made in the very language of the rule must be construed to mean that the defendant admits every fact alleged in the petition which it is necessary for the plaintiff to establish in the first instance to enable him to recover.” And further the defendant. “does not purport to admit the allegations of the petition, but merely to admit that the plaintiff has a prima facie case.” In Sanders v. Bridges, 67 Tex. 93 , 2 S. W. 663 , it is said: “The contemplation of the rule is that the admission shall be su 1921Smith v. Bank, 74 Tex. 541 , 12 S. W. 221 , cited in the majority opinion, holds: “An admission made in the very language of the rule must be construed to mean that the defendant admits every fact alleged in the petition which it is necessary for the plaintiff to establish in the first instance to enable him to recover.” And further the defendant. “does not purport to admit the allegations of the petition, but merely to admit that the plaintiff has a prima facie case.” In Sanders v. Bridges, 67 Tex. 93 , 2 S. W. 663 , it is said: “The contemplation of the rule is that the admission shall be su | 4 | 1921–1926 |
Rankin v. State
green
1 sentence2013In reaching this conclusion, the Court reasoned that because the spirit of the rule and the contemplation of the rule-makers includes the notion that limiting isntructions actually curb the improper use of evidence, and that the rule should act in a way that not only ‘restricts the evidence to its proper scope,” but does so as effectively as possible, “logic demands that the instruction be given at the first opportunity.” Id. at 712 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Overton Memorial Hospital v. McGuire
green
1 sentence2011The “Outer Bounds” of Waiver of Governmental Immunity The earliest of these three cases is Overton Memorial Hospital v. McGuire, 518 S.W.2d 528 (Tex.1975), in which the plaintiff claimed that the hospital negligently provided a hospital bed that possessed no safety rails; the plaintiff fell from the bed and was injured. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Turner v. Texas Co.
green
2 sentences1957The Supreme Court of Texas in Turner v. Texas Co., 138 Tex. 380 , 159 S.W.2d 112, 115 , summed up the elements of discovered peril in the following language: “The doctrine of discovered peril involves three elements, viz.: (1) The exposed condition brought about by the negligence of the plaintiff; (2) the actual discovery by defendants’ agents of’ his perilous situation in time to have averted—by the use of all the means at their command, commensurate with their own safety—injury -to him; and (3) the failure thereafter to use such means.” The truck driver saw the Buick enter the intersection a 1957The Supreme Court of Texas in Turner v. Texas Co., 138 Tex. 380 , 159 S.W.2d 112, 115 , summed up the elements of discovered peril in the following language: “The doctrine of discovered peril involves three elements, viz.: (1) The exposed condition brought about by the negligence of the plaintiff; (2) the actual discovery by defendants’ agents of’ his perilous situation in time to have averted—by the use of all the means at their command, commensurate with their own safety—injury -to him; and (3) the failure thereafter to use such means.” The truck driver saw the Buick enter the intersection a | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Settegast v. Martin
green
1 sentence1943See Millers Mut., etc., Co. v. Wilkirson, 124 Tex. 312 ; 77 S.W.2d 1035 , 1036 and Settegast v. Martin, Tex.Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d 299, 301 . | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Workman v. Ray
green
1 sentence1921The proceedings are placed in such a status that, if neither party offered any evidence, judgment would be rendered as a matter of law in favor of the plaintiff.” See, also, Workman v. Ray, 180 S. W. 291 . | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Smith v. Traders National Bank
green
2 sentences1921Smith v. Bank, 74 Tex. 541 , 12 S. W. 221 , cited in the majority opinion, holds: “An admission made in the very language of the rule must be construed to mean that the defendant admits every fact alleged in the petition which it is necessary for the plaintiff to establish in the first instance to enable him to recover.” And further the defendant. “does not purport to admit the allegations of the petition, but merely to admit that the plaintiff has a prima facie case.” In Sanders v. Bridges, 67 Tex. 93 , 2 S. W. 663 , it is said: “The contemplation of the rule is that the admission shall be su 1921Smith v. Bank, 74 Tex. 541 , 12 S. W. 221 , cited in the majority opinion, holds: “An admission made in the very language of the rule must be construed to mean that the defendant admits every fact alleged in the petition which it is necessary for the plaintiff to establish in the first instance to enable him to recover.” And further the defendant. “does not purport to admit the allegations of the petition, but merely to admit that the plaintiff has a prima facie case.” In Sanders v. Bridges, 67 Tex. 93 , 2 S. W. 663 , it is said: “The contemplation of the rule is that the admission shall be su | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Berry Bros. v. Fairbanks, Morse Co.
green
2 sentences1921App. 344 , 105 S. W. 65 , it is held: “Having admitted the appellee’s cause of action, and that admission reaching to the entire cause of action, the appellants cannot question the insufficiency of the evidence in proof of the appellee’s cause of action.” Again in Berry Bros. v. Fairbanks, 51 Tex. Civ. 1921App. 558 , 112 S. W. 427 , it is held: “The contemplation of the rule is that the admission relieves the appellees of proving the case, and to allow them to recover to the extent of the claim made in their pleadings. * * * The admission reaches to the entire cause of action pleaded, and appellants cannot question failure to offer evidence on any material allegation.” In Meade v. Logan, 110 S. W. 188 , it is held: “When the admission contemplated by this rule is filed and entered of record, the plaintiff is thereby relieved from the burden of proving any fact material to his recovery in the act | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Taylor v. Reynolds
neutral
2 sentences1921Smith v. Bank, 74 Tex. 541 , 12 S. W. 221 , cited in the majority opinion, holds: “An admission made in the very language of the rule must be construed to mean that the defendant admits every fact alleged in the petition which it is necessary for the plaintiff to establish in the first instance to enable him to recover.” And further the defendant. “does not purport to admit the allegations of the petition, but merely to admit that the plaintiff has a prima facie case.” In Sanders v. Bridges, 67 Tex. 93 , 2 S. W. 663 , it is said: “The contemplation of the rule is that the admission shall be su 1921App. 344 , 105 S. W. 65 , it is held: “Having admitted the appellee’s cause of action, and that admission reaching to the entire cause of action, the appellants cannot question the insufficiency of the evidence in proof of the appellee’s cause of action.” Again in Berry Bros. v. Fairbanks, 51 Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
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.