judge-made rule in Texas

2025“An election contestant bears the burden of alleging and proving by clear and convincing evidence that (1) violations of the Election Code occurred, and (2) they materially affected the outcome of the election.” Medlin v. King, No. 08-24-00001-CV, 2024 WL 3845970 , at *3 (Tex. App.— El Paso Aug. 16, 2024, pets. denied) (citing Willet v. Cole, 249 S.W.3d 585 , 589 & n.2 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, no pet.) (acknowledging clear-and-convincing burden lacks basis in the Election Code but is instead a longstanding judge-made rule)).

2025“An election contestant bears the burden of alleging and proving by clear and convincing evidence that (1) violations of the Election Code occurred, and (2) they materially affected the outcome of the election.” Medlin v. King, No. 08-24-00001-CV, 2024 WL 3845970 , at *3 (Tex. App.— El Paso Aug. 16, 2024, pets. denied) (citing Willet v. Cole, 249 S.W.3d 585 , 589 & n.2 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, no pet.) (acknowledging clear-and-convincing burden lacks basis in the Election Code but is instead a longstanding judge-made rule)).

2007We are ordinarily loathe to "create" law, Ex parte Briseno, supra, at 4 , and certainly may not create law that overrides the legislative prerogative as expressed in statutory law, absent an identifiable constitutional conflict.

2007We are ordinarily loathe to “create" law, Ex parte Briseno, supra, at 4 , and certainly may not create law that overrides the legislative prerogative as expressed in statutory law, absent an identifiable constitutional conflict.

2010The former is a court-created doctrine, see e.g., Taliani v. Chrans, 189 F.3d 597, 597 (7th Cir.1999) (noting that “equitable tolling [is] the judge-made doctrine ... that excuses a timely filing when the plaintiff could not, despite the exercise of reasonable diligence, have discovered all the information he needed in order to be able to file his claim on time”), that may not apply if a statutory requirement is deemed jurisdictional, see Zipes, 455 U.S. at 393 , 102 S.Ct. 1127 (holding that “filing a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit, .

2010The former is a court-created doctrine, see e.g., Taliani v. Chrans, 189 F.3d 597, 597 (7th Cir.1999) (noting that “equitable tolling [is] the judge-made doctrine ... that excuses a timely filing when the plaintiff could not, despite the exercise of reasonable diligence, have discovered all the information he needed in order to be able to file his claim on time”), that may not apply if a statutory requirement is deemed jurisdictional, see Zipes, 455 U.S. at 393 , 102 S.Ct. 1127 (holding that “filing a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit, .

2006Appellants cite to Thomas v. McNair, 882 S.W.2d 870 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1994, no writ), and Hoover v. Materi, 515 S.W.2d 406 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.), for the “generally recognized rule” that “mortgages or other liens on the undivided interest of a cotenant will, in the case of a partition sale, attach to the cotenant’s share of the proceeds of such sale, and the purchaser at the partition sale takes the property discharged of the lien.” Hoover, 515 S.W.2d at 408 .

2006Appellants cite to Thomas v. McNair, 882 S.W.2d 870 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1994, no writ), and Hoover v. Materi, 515 S.W.2d 406 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.), for the “generally recognized rule” that “mortgages or other liens on the undivided interest of a cotenant will, in the case of a partition sale, attach to the cotenant’s share of the proceeds of such sale, and the purchaser at the partition sale takes the property discharged of the lien.” Hoover, 515 S.W.2d at 408 .

2006Appellants cite to Thomas v. McNair, 882 S.W.2d 870 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1994, no writ), and Hoover v. Materi, 515 S.W.2d 406 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.), for the “generally recognized rule” that “mortgages or other liens on the undivided interest of a cotenant will, in the case of a partition sale, attach to the cotenant’s share of the proceeds of such sale, and the purchaser at the partition sale takes the property discharged of the lien.” Hoover, 515 S.W.2d at 408 .

1982The judge-made rule promulgated in the Hearne case applies only when the change of domicile, for which application is made, seeks approval “to move an existing bank from the place it was chartered to serve to a new and different banking community .. .. ” 580 S.W.2d at 347 .