record made hearing in Texas

1973Gerst v. Nixon, 411 S.W.2d 350 (Tex.1966); Spring Branch Savings and Loan Association v. Gerst, 420 S.W.2d 618 (Tex.Civ.App., Austin, 1967, writ ref. n. r. e.).

1968This was clearly held in Gerst v. Nixon, 411 S.W.2d 350 (Tex.Sup., 1966), wherein we said: “The substantial procedural change [made] * * * by the 1963 Act [Article 852a] was to make the record of the Commissioner’s hearing rather than evidence produced originally in court the basis from which it must be determined if the evidence conclusively required affirmative findings * * Otherwise, the method of review announced in such cases as Gerst v. Cain, 388 S.W.2d 168 (Tex.Sup., 1965); Phillips v. Brazosport Savings and Loan Ass’n, 366 S.W.2d 929 (Tex.Sup., 1963); Board of Firemen’s Relief & Retire

2017Asberry v. State, No. 10-15-00032-CR, 2015 WL 5915953 , *1-2, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 10415 , *3-4 (Tex. App.-Waco 2015) (not designated for publication), rev’d and rem, 2016 Tex. Crim.

1980That amendment having been superseded by chapter 120, and the temporary injunction being predicated upon the violation of the 1933 amendment, the case, as presented in this appeal, has become moot.” See also: Freeman v. Burrows, 141 Tex. 318 , 171 S.W.2d 863 (1943); Danciger Oil & Refining Co. of Texas v. Railroad Commission of Texas, 122 Tex. 243 , 56 S.W.2d 1075 (1933); Saunders v. Southwest General Insurance Company, 304 S.W.2d 406 (Tex.Civ.

1980That amendment having been superseded by chapter 120, and the temporary injunction being predicated upon the violation of the 1933 amendment, the case, as presented in this appeal, has become moot.” See also: Freeman v. Burrows, 141 Tex. 318 , 171 S.W.2d 863 (1943); Danciger Oil & Refining Co. of Texas v. Railroad Commission of Texas, 122 Tex. 243 , 56 S.W.2d 1075 (1933); Saunders v. Southwest General Insurance Company, 304 S.W.2d 406 (Tex.Civ.

1980That amendment having been superseded by chapter 120, and the temporary injunction being predicated upon the violation of the 1933 amendment, the case, as presented in this appeal, has become moot.” See also: Freeman v. Burrows, 141 Tex. 318 , 171 S.W.2d 863 (1943); Danciger Oil & Refining Co. of Texas v. Railroad Commission of Texas, 122 Tex. 243 , 56 S.W.2d 1075 (1933); Saunders v. Southwest General Insurance Company, 304 S.W.2d 406 (Tex.Civ.

1978This Court observed that the later statute had superseded the prior law and prescribed “definitions, standards, and criteria which in many respects are essentially different from those prescribed or involved in the [earlier statute].” The Court concluded, “We cannot in this proceeding, upon the record made in a hearing involving only [the earlier statute] determine those issues; but are confined to the issues presented by the record as applied to the [earlier law].” 86 S.W.2d 798 , col. 1.

1977See Rothschild v. State, supra; Minton v. State, 468 S.W.2d 426 (Tex.Cr.App.1971).

1975NOTES [1] Cf. Faurie v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 528 S.W.2d 263 (1975). [2] If properly before us (Cf. McCall v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 512 S.W.2d 334 ), the record made at that hearing reflects: The sheriff testified: "Q.

1975If properly before us (Cf. McCall v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 512 S.W.2d 334 ), the record made at that hearing reflects: The sheriff testified: “Q.

1975NOTES [1] Cf. Faurie v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 528 S.W.2d 263 (1975). [2] If properly before us (Cf. McCall v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 512 S.W.2d 334 ), the record made at that hearing reflects: The sheriff testified: "Q.

1973Gerst v. Nixon, 411 S.W.2d 350 (Tex.1966); Spring Branch Savings and Loan Association v. Gerst, 420 S.W.2d 618 (Tex.Civ.App., Austin, 1967, writ ref. n. r. e.).

1973See Article 40.05, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.; Nelson v. State, 464 S.W.2d 834 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Morales v. State, 458 S.W.2d 56 (Tex.Cr.App.1970) and Bennett v. State, 450 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).

1973See Article 40.05, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.; Nelson v. State, 464 S.W.2d 834 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Morales v. State, 458 S.W.2d 56 (Tex.Cr.App.1970) and Bennett v. State, 450 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).

1973See Article 40.05, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.; Nelson v. State, 464 S.W.2d 834 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Morales v. State, 458 S.W.2d 56 (Tex.Cr.App.1970) and Bennett v. State, 450 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).

1968This was clearly held in Gerst v. Nixon, 411 S.W.2d 350 (Tex.Sup., 1966), wherein we said: “The substantial procedural change [made] * * * by the 1963 Act [Article 852a] was to make the record of the Commissioner’s hearing rather than evidence produced originally in court the basis from which it must be determined if the evidence conclusively required affirmative findings * * Otherwise, the method of review announced in such cases as Gerst v. Cain, 388 S.W.2d 168 (Tex.Sup., 1965); Phillips v. Brazosport Savings and Loan Ass’n, 366 S.W.2d 929 (Tex.Sup., 1963); Board of Firemen’s Relief & Retire

1968This was clearly held in Gerst v. Nixon, 411 S.W.2d 350 (Tex.Sup., 1966), wherein we said: “The substantial procedural change [made] * * * by the 1963 Act [Article 852a] was to make the record of the Commissioner’s hearing rather than evidence produced originally in court the basis from which it must be determined if the evidence conclusively required affirmative findings * * Otherwise, the method of review announced in such cases as Gerst v. Cain, 388 S.W.2d 168 (Tex.Sup., 1965); Phillips v. Brazosport Savings and Loan Ass’n, 366 S.W.2d 929 (Tex.Sup., 1963); Board of Firemen’s Relief & Retire

1968This was clearly held in Gerst v. Nixon, 411 S.W.2d 350 (Tex.Sup., 1966), wherein we said: “The substantial procedural change [made] * * * by the 1963 Act [Article 852a] was to make the record of the Commissioner’s hearing rather than evidence produced originally in court the basis from which it must be determined if the evidence conclusively required affirmative findings * * Otherwise, the method of review announced in such cases as Gerst v. Cain, 388 S.W.2d 168 (Tex.Sup., 1965); Phillips v. Brazosport Savings and Loan Ass’n, 366 S.W.2d 929 (Tex.Sup., 1963); Board of Firemen’s Relief & Retire

1968This was clearly held in Gerst v. Nixon, 411 S.W.2d 350 (Tex.Sup., 1966), wherein we said: “The substantial procedural change [made] * * * by the 1963 Act [Article 852a] was to make the record of the Commissioner’s hearing rather than evidence produced originally in court the basis from which it must be determined if the evidence conclusively required affirmative findings * * Otherwise, the method of review announced in such cases as Gerst v. Cain, 388 S.W.2d 168 (Tex.Sup., 1965); Phillips v. Brazosport Savings and Loan Ass’n, 366 S.W.2d 929 (Tex.Sup., 1963); Board of Firemen’s Relief & Retire

1968This was clearly held in Gerst v. Nixon, 411 S.W.2d 350 (Tex.Sup., 1966), wherein we said: “The substantial procedural change [made] * * * by the 1963 Act [Article 852a] was to make the record of the Commissioner’s hearing rather than evidence produced originally in court the basis from which it must be determined if the evidence conclusively required affirmative findings * * Otherwise, the method of review announced in such cases as Gerst v. Cain, 388 S.W.2d 168 (Tex.Sup., 1965); Phillips v. Brazosport Savings and Loan Ass’n, 366 S.W.2d 929 (Tex.Sup., 1963); Board of Firemen’s Relief & Retire

1968This was clearly held in Gerst v. Nixon, 411 S.W.2d 350 (Tex.Sup., 1966), wherein we said: “The substantial procedural change [made] * * * by the 1963 Act [Article 852a] was to make the record of the Commissioner’s hearing rather than evidence produced originally in court the basis from which it must be determined if the evidence conclusively required affirmative findings * * Otherwise, the method of review announced in such cases as Gerst v. Cain, 388 S.W.2d 168 (Tex.Sup., 1965); Phillips v. Brazosport Savings and Loan Ass’n, 366 S.W.2d 929 (Tex.Sup., 1963); Board of Firemen’s Relief & Retire

1967On April 19, 1967, in Ex parte Rodriguez, 413 S.W.2d 919 , we said that the record made at the hearing on the accused's plea to the jurisdiction as well as his application for writ of habeas corpus will be made a part of the trial record of the case upon its merits by virtue of Article 28.01, Sec. (2), Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. (1965).

1967On April 19, 1967, in Ex parte Rodriguez, 413 S.W.2d 919 , we said that the record made at the hearing on the accused’s plea to the jurisdiction as well as his application for writ of habeas corpus will be made a part of the trial record of the case upon its merits by virtue of Article 28.01, Sec. (2), Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. (1965).

1967In Foster v. State, supra, we had practically the same question of law which is before us here, except that in the case at bar the offenses for which appellants were committed as juveniles were not a part of the transaction upon which the State now seeks to prosecute them.

1967In Foster v. State, supra, we had practically the same question of law which is before us here, except that in the case at bar the offenses for which appellants were committed as juveniles were not a part of the transaction upon which the State now seeks to prosecute them.

1964Railroad Commission v. Shell Oil Co., 139 Tex. 66 , 161 S.W.2d 1022 , Cook Drilling Co. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 139 Tex. 80 , 161 S.W.2d 1035 , Miller v. Tarry, 191 S.W.2d 501 , Austin Civil Appeals, writ ref., n. r. e. See Kavanagh v. Holcombe, 312 S.W.2d 399 , Houston Civil Appeals, writ ref., n. r. e., for an excellent discussion of the question and pertinent authorities.

1964Railroad Commission v. Shell Oil Co., 139 Tex. 66 , 161 S.W.2d 1022 , Cook Drilling Co. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 139 Tex. 80 , 161 S.W.2d 1035 , Miller v. Tarry, 191 S.W.2d 501 , Austin Civil Appeals, writ ref., n. r. e. See Kavanagh v. Holcombe, 312 S.W.2d 399 , Houston Civil Appeals, writ ref., n. r. e., for an excellent discussion of the question and pertinent authorities.

1964Railroad Commission v. Shell Oil Co., 139 Tex. 66 , 161 S.W.2d 1022 , Cook Drilling Co. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 139 Tex. 80 , 161 S.W.2d 1035 , Miller v. Tarry, 191 S.W.2d 501 , Austin Civil Appeals, writ ref., n. r. e. See Kavanagh v. Holcombe, 312 S.W.2d 399 , Houston Civil Appeals, writ ref., n. r. e., for an excellent discussion of the question and pertinent authorities.

1964Railroad Commission v. Shell Oil Co., 139 Tex. 66 , 161 S.W.2d 1022 , Cook Drilling Co. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 139 Tex. 80 , 161 S.W.2d 1035 , Miller v. Tarry, 191 S.W.2d 501 , Austin Civil Appeals, writ ref., n. r. e. See Kavanagh v. Holcombe, 312 S.W.2d 399 , Houston Civil Appeals, writ ref., n. r. e., for an excellent discussion of the question and pertinent authorities.

1964Railroad Commission v. Shell Oil Co., 139 Tex. 66 , 161 S.W.2d 1022 , Cook Drilling Co. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 139 Tex. 80 , 161 S.W.2d 1035 , Miller v. Tarry, 191 S.W.2d 501 , Austin Civil Appeals, writ ref., n. r. e. See Kavanagh v. Holcombe, 312 S.W.2d 399 , Houston Civil Appeals, writ ref., n. r. e., for an excellent discussion of the question and pertinent authorities.

1964Railroad Commission v. Shell Oil Co., 139 Tex. 66 , 161 S.W.2d 1022 , Cook Drilling Co. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 139 Tex. 80 , 161 S.W.2d 1035 , Miller v. Tarry, 191 S.W.2d 501 , Austin Civil Appeals, writ ref., n. r. e. See Kavanagh v. Holcombe, 312 S.W.2d 399 , Houston Civil Appeals, writ ref., n. r. e., for an excellent discussion of the question and pertinent authorities.