last sentence rule (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

last sentence rule in Texas

11 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1955–2013 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Idaho v. Wrightgreen
scotus · 1990 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992See Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 , 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3147 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990); Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 407 , 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1069 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965); and Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 243 , 15 S.Ct. 337, 340 , 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895).

1992See Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 , 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3147 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990); Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 407 , 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1069 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965); and Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 243 , 15 S.Ct. 337, 340 , 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895).

11
Jeter v. Associated Rack Corp.green
texapp · 1980 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
1 sentence

1992This sentence states: “The personal efficiency, inventiveness, skills and experience which an employee develops through his work belong to him and not his former employer.” Appellant cites Jeter v. Associated Rack Corp., 607 S.W.2d 272, 276 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.) in support of its claim that this part of the instruction *632 was improper.

11
Chandler v. Chandlergreen
texapp · 1976 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984
1 sentence

1984In Chandler v. Chandler, 536 S.W.2d 260, 262 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1976, writ dism'd), the court in overruling a point similar to that in the case at bar stated: When the absent party is the one who affirmatively asserts his right to a jury and has timely paid his jury fee, his absence shall be deemed as a waiver by him of the right to a trial by jury.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
Loven v. State green
texapp · 1992
2 sentences

2003Id.

2003Id.

32003–2003
Dallas Railway & Terminal Co. v. Ector green
tex · 1938
2 sentences

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

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

21955–1955
Estate of Zamaro v. Rodriguez neutral
texapp · 1975
1 sentence

2013Burgess also argues this case mirrors Zamaro’s Estate v. Rodriguez, 517 S.W.2d 838 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1975, no writ).

12013–2013
Grayson Fire Extinguisher Co., Inc. v. Jackson green
texapp · 1978
1 sentence

1995The Grayson court emphasized the last sentence of the rule, apparently equating "finality" with "validity." Grayson , 566 S.W.2d at 322-23 .

11995–1995
Mattox v. United States green
· 1895
2 sentences

1992See Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 , 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3147 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990); Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 407 , 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1069 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965); and Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 243 , 15 S.Ct. 337, 340 , 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895).

1992See Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 , 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3147 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990); Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 407 , 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1069 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965); and Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 243 , 15 S.Ct. 337, 340 , 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895).

11992–1992
Pointer v. Texas green
scotus · 1965
2 sentences

1992See Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 , 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3147 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990); Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 407 , 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1069 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965); and Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 243 , 15 S.Ct. 337, 340 , 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895).

1992See Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 , 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3147 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990); Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 407 , 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1069 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965); and Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 243 , 15 S.Ct. 337, 340 , 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895).

11992–1992
City of Houston v. Arney green
texapp · 1984
1 sentence

1987The Grayson result was based largely on the last sentence of the rule, and Grayson was followed without discussion in City of Houston v. Arney, 680 S.W.2d 867 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, no writ).

11987–1987

Where else courts name it

CA 43 (1919–2026) WA 13 (1941–2025) IA 13 (1909–2015) FL 11 (1963–2007) TX 11 (1955–2013) IL 11 (1908–2022) IN 9 (1899–2016) TN 9 (2000–2023) MA 6 (1983–2008) AZ 6 (1925–2022) NM 5 (1952–1977) VA 5 (1922–2002) AL 4 (1996–2000) MN 4 (1987–2016) NC 4 (1943–2012) MO 4 (1908–1982) WI 4 (1927–1995) NY 4 (1934–2005) GA 4 (1912–1998) OR 4 (1975–2017) KS 3 (1909–2020) UT 3 (1940–1999) ND 2 (1980–1985) WV 2 (1987–2021) NE 2 (1944–1963) NH 2 (1975–1995) SD 2 (1978–1990) MS 2 (1930–2010) OH 2 (1971–2019) ME 2 (1963–1987) CO 2 (1981–2000)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check