quoted rule in Texas

2024And the Court quoted this principle again as part of its preemption analysis in Cipollone. 505 U.S. at 521 .

2024And the Court quoted this principle again as part of its preemption analysis in Cipollone. 505 U.S. at 521 .

1971In Oliphant v. Markham, 79 Tex. 543 , 15 S.W. 569, 571 , the jury was instructed ‘that, if they found that Jones bought futures for Markham, and advanced money for that purpose * * * this rendered the transaction illegal, and plaintiff could not recover.’ Our Supreme Court said that the quoted instruction was correct.

1971In Oliphant v. Markham, 79 Tex. 543 , 15 S.W. 569, 571 , the jury was instructed ‘that, if they found that Jones bought futures for Markham, and advanced money for that purpose * * * this rendered the transaction illegal, and plaintiff could not recover.’ Our Supreme Court said that the quoted instruction was correct.

1971In Garza v. Richmond, Tex.Civ.App., 249 S.W. 889 , it was held that checks cashed by the plaintiff for the purpose of gambling at a table run by plaintiff could not be collected through the Courts of Texas.

1959In Garza v. Richmond, Tex.Civ.App., 249 S.W. 889 , it was held that checks cashed by the plaintiff for the purpose of gambling at a table run by plaintiff could not be collected through the Courts of Texas.

1954Co., 127 Tex. 23, 27 , 91 S.W.2d 332, 333 ; Pope v. Beauchamp, 110 Tex. 271, 280 , 219 S.W. 447 ; Sonnentheil v. Christian Moerlein Brewing Company, 172 U.S. 401 , 19 S.Ct. 233 , 43 L.Ed. 492, 495 ; Mills v. Mills, Tex.Com.App., 228 S.W. 919 ; Burleson v. Tinnin, Tex.Civ.App., 100 S.W. 350 , application for writ of er ror refused; Traders & General Insurance Co. v. Milliken, Tex.Civ.App., 87 S.W.2d 503, 505 . “ ‘The plaintiff’s testimony, the substance of which has been hereinbefore stated, is not so clear, positive and unequivocal upon the point at issue and of such' nature and given under su

1954App., 87 S.W. 2d 503, 505 . “ ‘The plaintiff’s testimony, the substance of which has been hereinbefore stated, is not so clear, positive and unequivocal upon the point at issue and of such nature and given under such circumstances as to bring it within the exception to the above quoted rule and authorize the trial court to give conclusive effect to it.

1917The quoted clause concerning restrictions and regulations refers, not to Courts of Civil Appeals, whose jurisdiction was being defined elsewhere (sec. 6), b.ut to the Supreme Court; and “restrictions” is there used in the sense of “limitations.” Maddox v. Covington, 87 Texas, 454 , 29 S. W., 465 ; Schleicher v. Runge, 90 Texas, 456 , 39 S. W., 279 .

1917The quoted clause concerning restrictions and regulations refers, not to Courts of Civil Appeals, whose jurisdiction was being defined elsewhere (sec. 6), b.ut to the Supreme Court; and “restrictions” is there used in the sense of “limitations.” Maddox v. Covington, 87 Texas, 454 , 29 S. W., 465 ; Schleicher v. Runge, 90 Texas, 456 , 39 S. W., 279 .

1917The quoted clause concerning restrictions and regulations refers, not to Courts of Civil Appeals, whose jurisdiction was being defined elsewhere (sec. 6), b.ut to the Supreme Court; and “restrictions” is there used in the sense of “limitations.” Maddox v. Covington, 87 Texas, 454 , 29 S. W., 465 ; Schleicher v. Runge, 90 Texas, 456 , 39 S. W., 279 .

1917The quoted clause concerning restrictions and regulations refers, not to Courts of Civil Appeals, whose jurisdiction was being defined elsewhere (sec. 6), b.ut to the Supreme Court; and “restrictions” is there used in the sense of “limitations.” Maddox v. Covington, 87 Texas, 454 , 29 S. W., 465 ; Schleicher v. Runge, 90 Texas, 456 , 39 S. W., 279 .

2012The court quoted this rule in Prado-Steiman v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266 , 1279-80 (11th Cir.2000), another case defendants cite.

1986Under the court's charge, the jury could have found Texan Transfer to be [Byboth and Branscum's] alter ego upon a finding that "one or more" of the above quoted factors existed. 695 S.W.2d at 645 .

1984Crisp v. Security National Insurance Co., 369 S.W.2d 326 (Tex.1963), where the Supreme Court said: The quoted clause constitutes only a limitation on the amount of recovery.

1982Under the rule a covenant which requires conduct which the parties themselves cannot define with certainty will not be implied. 229 S.W.2d at 874 .

1981Any experienced trial lawyer knows that a purported trial without adequate preparation amounts to no trial at all.” (Footnote omitted) The Court also quoted the rule it had adopted from Willis v. Hunter, 166 F.2d 721 (10th Cir.): “We think that the right to the effective assistance of counsel contemplated the guiding hand of an able and responsible lawyer, devoted solely to the interest of his client; who has ample opportunity to acquaint himself with the law and facts of the case, and is afforded an opportunity to present them to a court or jury in their most favorable light.” See also King v

1981An early and leading case is Nebraska v. Iowa, 143 U.S. 359 , 12 S.Ct. 396 , 36 L.Ed. 186 (1892).

1981An early and leading case is Nebraska v. Iowa, 143 U.S. 359 , 12 S.Ct. 396 , 36 L.Ed. 186 (1892).

1981Any experienced trial lawyer knows that a purported trial without adequate preparation amounts to no trial at all.” (Footnote omitted) The Court also quoted the rule it had adopted from Willis v. Hunter, 166 F.2d 721 (10th Cir.): “We think that the right to the effective assistance of counsel contemplated the guiding hand of an able and responsible lawyer, devoted solely to the interest of his client; who has ample opportunity to acquaint himself with the law and facts of the case, and is afforded an opportunity to present them to a court or jury in their most favorable light.” See also King v

1981Any experienced trial lawyer knows that a purported trial without adequate preparation amounts to no trial at all.” (Footnote omitted) The Court also quoted the rule it had adopted from Willis v. Hunter, 166 F.2d 721 (10th Cir.): “We think that the right to the effective assistance of counsel contemplated the guiding hand of an able and responsible lawyer, devoted solely to the interest of his client; who has ample opportunity to acquaint himself with the law and facts of the case, and is afforded an opportunity to present them to a court or jury in their most favorable light.” See also King v

1978In agreement is Hulsey v. Keel, 541 S.W.2d 656 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1976, writ ref’d n. r. e.), wherein the Court stated, “ . . there must be a written agreement signed by the parties and timely filed with the clerk to postpone the decision.

1978Penal Code, Sec. 46.01, is ‘any firearm that is designed, made, or adapted to be fired with one hand.’ (Em phasis Supplied) Again, it is evident that the lesser offense and the offense charged are capable of proof by the same fact that appellant had in his automobile a .38 caliber revolver.” (Emphasis added.) In Hazel v. State, supra, the defendant’s conviction for the lesser included offense was held proper on the basis of the above quoted analysis of whether Art. 37.09, supra, applied.

1978Penal Code, Sec. 46.01, is `any firearm that is designed, made, or adapted to be fired with one hand.' (Emphasis *162 Supplied) Again, it is evident that the lesser offense and the offense charged are capable of proof by the same fact that appellant had in his automobile a .38 caliber revolver." (Emphasis added.) In Hazel v. State, supra, the defendant's conviction for the lesser included offense was held proper on the basis of the above quoted analysis of whether Art. 37.09, supra, applied.

1977The above quoted rule was followed in City of Tyler v. Bruck, 267 S.W.2d 429 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1954, writ ref’d n. r. e.), where the Court pointed out that equity will not relieve a person from his erroneous acts or omissions resulting from his own negligence.

1977The same rule was applied in Continental Credit Corporation v. Norman, 303 S.W.2d 449 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1957, writ ref’d n. r. e.), where Justice Pope, writing for the Court, said: “The trial court concluded that both General Motors, the owner; and Continental, the mortgagee, were negligent.

1976The duty, in a word, must be ministerial, one which does not involve any discretion, and which leaves no alternative.” In Wortham v. Walker, 133 Tex. 255 , 128 S.W.2d 1138 (1939), the court quoted the rule concerning the certainty of averments in petition for mandamus as: “. . . ‘Relator, to be entitled to the right must at least have a clear legal right to the performance by respondent of the particular duty sought to be enforced, that is, there must be a clear legal right in relator and a corresponding duty on the part of the person to whom the writ is directed.

1976The duty, in a word, must be ministerial, one which does not involve any discretion, and which leaves no alternative.” In Wortham v. Walker, 133 Tex. 255 , 128 S.W.2d 1138 (1939), the court quoted the rule concerning the certainty of averments in petition for mandamus as: “. . . ‘Relator, to be entitled to the right must at least have a clear legal right to the performance by respondent of the particular duty sought to be enforced, that is, there must be a clear legal right in relator and a corresponding duty on the part of the person to whom the writ is directed.

1973The appellants cite for consideration the Supreme Court opinion in the case of City of Corsicana v. Willmann, 147 Tex. 377 , 216 S.W.2d 175 (Tex.Sup.Ct.1949).

1973The appellants cite for consideration the Supreme Court opinion in the case of City of Corsicana v. Willmann, 147 Tex. 377 , 216 S.W.2d 175 (Tex.Sup.Ct.1949).

1972Mr. Eddie, Inc. v. Ginsberg (Eastland Tex.Civ.App.1968) 430 S.W.2d 5 , error refused NRE (see at page 10 a quoted instruction as to definition of “good cause”); Ingram v. Dallas County Water Control and Improvement District (Dallas Tex.Civ.App.1968) 425 S.W.2d 366 , no writ history.