ease bar in Texas

2010In Zajaczkowski, the United States District Court of Maryland determined that, given the premium on the expeditious resolution of Hague Convention controversies, it would treat Hague Convention petitions like federal applications for writs of habeas corpus and would “hear evidence and argument in summary fashion and decide the ease at the hearing, unless, for good cause shown, it finds reason for delay.” 7 Zajac-zkowski, 932 F.Supp. at 132 .

2010Champenois, 874 S.W.2d at 258 ; Collins, 2007 WL 3287879 , at *4.

2007Auth., 879 S.W.2d 64 , 66 n. 1 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1993, writ dism’d by agr.). 3 We conclude the law of the ease doctrine is not applicable here and, thus, the First Court of Appeals’s decision in Four Brothers I does not foreclose Four Brothers’ and Columbia Star’s claims for damages against Tesoro for breach of the subleases. 4 B.

1999Beck, 719 S.W.2d at 210 .

1998Article 44.01(a)(1) plainly allows a State’s appeal if the order of a court in a criminal case “dismisses an indictment, information or complaint, or any portion of an indictment, information or com-plaint_” Art. 44.01 must be “construed to achieve its purpose.” Young, 810 S.W.2d at 224 . “[T]he intent of the Legislature in enacting such Article was to allow for a state appeal from any trial court order terminating the criminal proceedings against a defendant.” Ibid.

1998Article 44.01(a)(1) plainly allows a State’s appeal if the order of a court in a criminal case “dismisses an indictment, information or complaint, or any portion of an indictment, information or com-plaint_” Art. 44.01 must be “construed to achieve its purpose.” Young, 810 S.W.2d at 224 . “[T]he intent of the Legislature in enacting such Article was to allow for a state appeal from any trial court order terminating the criminal proceedings against a defendant.” Ibid.

1997Specifically, appellant asserts that because assessment of the tax is a punishment as contemplated by the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, any subsequent prosecution for the same offense is barred. 1 In Ward v. State, 870 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd), vacated, 513 U.S. 1011 , 115 S.Ct. 567 , 130 L.Ed.2d 485 (1994), the First Court of Appeals addressed the identical issue presented in the ease at bar.

1997The majority’s reliance upon Republican Party of Texas v. Dietz, 940 S.W.2d 86 (Tex.1997), is misplaced.

1997In City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 , 103 S.Ct. 1660 , 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983), for example, Lyons complained that after being stopped for a traffic or vehicle code violation and offering no resistance or provocation, Los Angeles police officers seized him and applied a “choke-hold,” rendering him unconscious and damaging his larynx.

1997In City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 , 103 S.Ct. 1660 , 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983), for example, Lyons complained that after being stopped for a traffic or vehicle code violation and offering no resistance or provocation, Los Angeles police officers seized him and applied a “choke-hold,” rendering him unconscious and damaging his larynx.

1997Specifically, appellant asserts that because assessment of the tax is a punishment as contemplated by the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, any subsequent prosecution for the same offense is barred. 1 In Ward v. State, 870 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd), vacated, 513 U.S. 1011 , 115 S.Ct. 567 , 130 L.Ed.2d 485 (1994), the First Court of Appeals addressed the identical issue presented in the ease at bar.

1997Specifically, appellant asserts that because assessment of the tax is a punishment as contemplated by the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, any subsequent prosecution for the same offense is barred. 1 In Ward v. State, 870 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd), vacated, 513 U.S. 1011 , 115 S.Ct. 567 , 130 L.Ed.2d 485 (1994), the First Court of Appeals addressed the identical issue presented in the ease at bar.

1997Specifically, appellant asserts that because assessment of the tax is a punishment as contemplated by the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, any subsequent prosecution for the same offense is barred. 1 In Ward v. State, 870 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd), vacated, 513 U.S. 1011 , 115 S.Ct. 567 , 130 L.Ed.2d 485 (1994), the First Court of Appeals addressed the identical issue presented in the ease at bar.

1996The Court in Gandy held a judgment that does not result from a fully adversarial trial is not admissible in an action by a plaintiff as a defendant insured’s assignee, disapproving its prior holding in Block, 744 S.W.2d at 943 , i.e., that the insurer was barred from collaterally attacking the underlying judgment by litigating the reasonableness of the damages.

1996NO EVIDENCE OF DAMAGES Although the negligence action in the instant case was brought by Robert, rather than by Maldonado as Robert’s assignee, the damage award in the underlying judgment should not be admissible as evidence in the instant ease under the rule announced in Gandy. 925 S.W.2d at 711 .

1996Id. at 326 note 4.

1996Id.

1995Id. at 509 .

1995State v. Johnson, 821 S.W.2d 609 , 612 n. 2 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).

1994In so holding, we acknowledge the holdings of the court of criminal appeals in Rodriguez, 819 S.W.2d at 873 , and Villalon v. State, 791 S.W.2d 130 (Tex.Crim.App.1990), but find them factually distinguishable from the ease at bar.