predecessor rule in Texas

2023See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to rule 26).

2022See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to rule 26).

2021Co., 830 S.W.2d 911, 914 (Tex. 1992) (applying former rule 215(5), the predecessor to rule 193.6)).

2012Co., 830 S.W.2d 911, 914 (Tex. 1992) (applying former rule 215(5), the predecessor to rule 193.6); F & H Invs., Inc. v. State, 55 S.W.3d 663, 669 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, no pet.).

2015See, e.g., id. at 933 ; see also King v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., No. 14-12-00621-CV, 2012 WL 4165589 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 20, 2012, no pet.) (per curiam mem. op.); Johnson v. Residential Funding Real Estate Holdings, LLC, No. 01-10-00287- CV, 2011 WL 2418516 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 26, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); Barriere v. Am.

2014See, e.g., id. at 933; see also King v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., No. 14-12-00621-CV, 2012 WL 4165589 , at *1 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 20, 2012, no pet.) (per curiam mem. op.); Johnson v. Residential Funding Real Estate Holdings, LLC, No. 01-10-00287-CV, 2011 WL 2418516 , at *1 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] May 26, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); Barriere v. Am.

2010This requires the State to *708 come forward with reasons why the appellate court should find the error harmless." Merritt v. State, 982 S.W.2d 634, 637 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (citing Arnold v. State, 786 S.W.2d 295, 298 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (placing the burden on the State to show harmless error under former rule 81(b)(2), the predecessor to rule 44.2(a)); see also Davis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 311, 317 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

2010This requires the State to come forward with reasons why the appellate court should find the error harmless.” Merritt v. State, 982 S.W.2d 634, 637 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (citing Arnold v. State, 786 S.W.2d 295, 298 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (placing the burden on the State to show harmless error under former rule 81(b)(2), the predecessor to rule 44.2(a)); see also Davis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 311, 317 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

2006See Christiansen v. Prezelski, 782 S.W.2d 842, 843 (Tex.1990) (stating that “[a] reviewing court must examine the entire record in a case in order to determine whether an error was [reversible error]” and that if the predecessor rule to current Rule 34.6(c) does not apply, then “it will be presumed that the omitted portions [of the record] are relevant to the disposition of the appeal”); Middleton v. Nat’l Fam.

2006See Christiansen v. Prezelski, 782 S.W.2d 842, 843 (Tex.1990) (stating that "[a] reviewing court must examine the entire record in a case in order to determine whether an error was [reversible error]" and that if the predecessor rule to current Rule 34.6(c) does not apply, then "it will be presumed that the omitted portions [of the record] are relevant to the disposition of the appeal"); Middleton v. Nat'l Fam.

2010This requires the State to *708 come forward with reasons why the appellate court should find the error harmless." Merritt v. State, 982 S.W.2d 634, 637 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (citing Arnold v. State, 786 S.W.2d 295, 298 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (placing the burden on the State to show harmless error under former rule 81(b)(2), the predecessor to rule 44.2(a)); see also Davis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 311, 317 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

2010This requires the State to come forward with reasons why the appellate court should find the error harmless.” Merritt v. State, 982 S.W.2d 634, 637 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (citing Arnold v. State, 786 S.W.2d 295, 298 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (placing the burden on the State to show harmless error under former rule 81(b)(2), the predecessor to rule 44.2(a)); see also Davis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 311, 317 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

2010App. 1982) (concluding that a silent record did not overcome the presumption created by the predecessor to rule 44.2(c) that a jury was properly impaneled and sworn); Lincoln, 307 S.W.3d at 923 (holding that “[a] silent record will not suffice as an affirmative showing” to successfully rebut the presumption that the defendant entered a plea).

2010App. 1982) (concluding that a silent record did not overcome the presumption created by the predecessor to rule 44.2(c) that a jury was properly impaneled and sworn); Lincoln , 307 S.W.3d at 923 (holding that "[a] silent record will not suffice as an affirmative showing" to successfully rebut the presumption that the defendant entered a plea).

2009P. 193.6(a)(1), (2); see, e.g., Patton v. Saint Joseph’s Hosp., 887 S.W.2d 233, 237 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1994, writ denied) (applying former rule 215(5), the predecessor to rule 193.6).

2009P. 193.6(a)(1), (2); see, e.g., Patton v. Saint Joseph’s Hosp. , 887 S.W.2d 233, 237 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1994, writ denied) (applying former rule 215(5), the predecessor to rule 193.6).

2006Code Ann. § 13.003 (a) (Vernon 2002); see also In re VanDeWater, 966 S.W.2d 730 , 733-34 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (construing the predecessor to rule 20 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in pari materia with section 13.003).

2006CODE ANN. 5 13.003(a) (Vernon 2002); see also In re VunDe Water, 966 S.W.2d 730,733-34 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (construing the predecessor to rule 20 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure inpuri mater& with section 13.003).

2024See id. at 12–15; see also Coates, 758 S.W.2d at 751 (explaining that the predecessor rule to Rule 204.1 was derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 and that “[f]ederal courts’ construction of Rule 35 is thus helpful to an analysis of [Rule 204]”).

2016Id.

2024Drug Corp., 391 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex. 1965) (interpreting the predecessor rule to Rule 202); Combs[ v. Tex. Civil Rights Project], 410 S.W.3d [529,] 534 [(Tex. App.—Austin 2013, pet. denied)] (concluding that a Rule 202 petition is not a “suit”); see also 35 Patton Boggs LLP[ v. Moseley], 394 S.W.3d [565,] 571 [(Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.)] (concluding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant a motion to compel arbitration filed in a Rule 202 proceeding).

2020Dillard was decided under a predecessor to our current ethics rules, and the Supreme Court has suggested that Rule 1.10’s requirement of “hands on” involvement or actual access to confidential information differs from the predecessor rule.73 Moreover, the Fifth Circuit case cited by the court of appeals seems to rely on an absolute rule of disqualification that leaves no room for the screening measures allowed by Rule 1.10.74 And the other federal circuit case cited by the court of appeals appears to involve an attorney’s ability to 71 Spears v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 797 S.W.2d 654, 657 (Te

2020See also R. 1.10 Comment 7. (“Paragraph (c) operates only when the lawyer in question has actual as opposed to imputed knowledge of the confidential government information.”). 72 Spears, supra. 73 Id.

2019The court of criminal appeals had seemingly applied the predecessor of this rule as support for a fundamental error doctrine in Jasper v. State, 61 S.W.3d 413, 420 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001).

2019See Cantu, 878 S.W.2d at 131 . 7 We note that although this is not a mandamus case, we issued a similar directive to the trial court here.

2018Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 416 (Tex. Crim.

2015See White v. Tricontinental Leasing Corp., 760 S.W.2d 23, 24-25 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1988, no writ) (request for admissions served on attorney during the time period he was not an attorney of record was not properly deemed admitted under the predecessor rule to Rule 198).

2014P. 736.8(c); Johnson v. Residential Funding Real 2 Estate Holdings, LLC, No. 01-10-00287-CV, 2011 WL 2418516 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 26, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); Kelso v. CIT Grp./Consumer Fin., Inc., No. 01-05-00671-CV, 2005 WL 3118182 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 23, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also In re Casterline, No. 13-13-00708-CV, 2014 WL 217285, at *5 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Jan. 15, 2014, orig. proceeding) (noting that “courts routinely dismissed appeals brought under the predecessor rule” to current Rule 736.8).

2013See Butts v. Capitol City Nursing Home, Inc., 705 S.W.2d 696, 697 (Tex. 1986); see also McConnell v. May, 800 S.W.2d 194, 194 (Tex. 1990).

2013See Butts v. Capitol City Nursing Home, Inc., 705 S.W.2d 696, 697 (Tex. 1986); see also McConnell v. May, 800 S.W.2d 194, 194 (Tex. 1990).

2012Co., 830 S.W.2d 911, 914 (Tex. 1992) (applying former rule 215(5), the predecessor to rule 193.6); F & H Invs., Inc. v. State, 55 S.W.3d 663, 669 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, no pet.).

2010This requires the State to *708 come forward with reasons why the appellate court should find the error harmless." Merritt v. State, 982 S.W.2d 634, 637 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (citing Arnold v. State, 786 S.W.2d 295, 298 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (placing the burden on the State to show harmless error under former rule 81(b)(2), the predecessor to rule 44.2(a)); see also Davis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 311, 317 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

2010This requires the State to come forward with reasons why the appellate court should find the error harmless.” Merritt v. State, 982 S.W.2d 634, 637 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (citing Arnold v. State, 786 S.W.2d 295, 298 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (placing the burden on the State to show harmless error under former rule 81(b)(2), the predecessor to rule 44.2(a)); see also Davis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 311, 317 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

2007Sutton v. Bage, 822 S.W.2d 55, 57 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (orig.proceeding). [9] We recognize that at the time Rosenbaum was decided, former appellate rule 41(b)(1), the predecessor to rule 26.2(b), provided that the deadline for filing the State's notice of appeal ran from the date an appealable order was signed by the trial judge.

2006See Bennett , 96 S.W.3d at 229 ; Hiroms v. Scheffey , 76 S.W.3d 486, 489 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (holding court could not address merits of alleged charge error because appellate record did not contain complete record of trial proceedings); Gardner v. Baker & Botts, L.L.P. , 6 S.W.3d 295 , 296 B 98 (Tex. App. C Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) (holding that complete record of trial was not provided because record lacked voir dire, opening statements, closing arguments, and some testimony and holding that, because appellants did not comply with the predecessor rul

2006See Bennett , 96 S.W.3d at 229 ; Hiroms v. Scheffey , 76 S.W.3d 486, 489 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (holding court could not address merits of alleged charge error because appellate record did not contain complete record of trial proceedings); Gardner v. Baker & Botts, L.L.P. , 6 S.W.3d 295 , 296 B 98 (Tex. App. C Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) (holding that complete record of trial was not provided because record lacked voir dire, opening statements, closing arguments, and some testimony and holding that, because appellants did not comply with the predecessor rul