Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1938–2015 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Gold v. Goldgreen2 sentences2008The Texas Supreme Court has held the absence in the record of any proof of notice is "'just that - an absence of proof of error.' Accordingly, it is not error apparent on the face of the record, and could not support a restricted appeal." Gold v. Gold , 145 S.W.3d 212, 213 (Tex. 2004) (quoting Alexander , 134 S.W.3d at 848 ). (4) Because there is no evidence in the record that Section 410.253 was violated, this Company point of error is overruled. (7) The Record Reveals No Violation of Section 410.258 Company claims there is error on the face of the record because the record does not contain e 2008The Texas Supreme Court has held the absence in the record of any proof of notice is “ ‘just that — an absence of proof of error.’ Accordingly, it is not error apparent on the face of the record, and could not support a restricted appeal.” Gold v. *860 Gold, 145 S.W.3d 212, 213 (Tex.2004) (quoting Alexander, 134 S.W.3d at 848 ). 4 Because there is no evidence in the record that Section 410.253 was violated, this Company point of error is overruled. (7) The Record Reveals No Violation of Section 4.10.258 Company claims there is error on the face of the record because the record does not contain | 4 | 5 |
First Nat. Bank of Amarillo v. Slaton Independent School Dist.green2 sentences2015Bank v. Slaton Independent School Dist., 58 S.W.2d 870, 875 (Tex.Civ.App. –Amarillo 1933, writ dism’d) (“The burden of proof is upon him who alleges authority; in the absence of proof no presumption of authority will be indulged.”); Mission Linen Supply, Inc. v. Sandy's Signals, Inc., 2- 07-014-CV, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 5968 *10; 2007 WL 2152070 (Tex. App.-- Fort Worth, July 26, 2007) (“the burden of proof is on the party relying on the doctrine of apparent authority to bind a principal to prove facts that will establish apparent authority.”).15 15 Amerigroup cites no authority holding that lac 2015Bank v. Slaton Independent School Dist., 58 S.W.2d 870, 875 (Tex.Civ.App. –Amarillo 1933, writ dism’d) (“The burden of proof is upon him who alleges authority; in the absence of proof no presumption of authority will be indulged.”); Mission Linen Supply, Inc. v. Sandy's Signals, Inc., 2- 07-014-CV, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 5968 *10; 2007 WL 2152070 (Tex. App.-- Fort Worth, July 26, 2007) (“the burden of proof is on the party relying on the doctrine of apparent authority to bind a principal to prove facts that will establish apparent authority.”).15 15 Amerigroup cites no authority holding that lac | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
George Alexander D/B/A Zentner's Daughter Steakhouse v. Lynda's Boutique
green
2 sentences2008The Texas Supreme Court has held the absence in the record of any proof of notice is "'just that - an absence of proof of error.' Accordingly, it is not error apparent on the face of the record, and could not support a restricted appeal." Gold v. Gold , 145 S.W.3d 212, 213 (Tex. 2004) (quoting Alexander , 134 S.W.3d at 848 ). (4) Because there is no evidence in the record that Section 410.253 was violated, this Company point of error is overruled. (7) The Record Reveals No Violation of Section 410.258 Company claims there is error on the face of the record because the record does not contain e 2008The Texas Supreme Court has held the absence in the record of any proof of notice is “ ‘just that — an absence of proof of error.’ Accordingly, it is not error apparent on the face of the record, and could not support a restricted appeal.” Gold v. *860 Gold, 145 S.W.3d 212, 213 (Tex.2004) (quoting Alexander, 134 S.W.3d at 848 ). 4 Because there is no evidence in the record that Section 410.253 was violated, this Company point of error is overruled. (7) The Record Reveals No Violation of Section 4.10.258 Company claims there is error on the face of the record because the record does not contain | 6 | 2004–2008 |
Lane v. Fair Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences1991Id. 243 S.W.2d at 685 . 1991Id. 243 S.W.2d at 685 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Poynor v. United Producers' Pipe Line Co.
neutral
1 sentence1938In Poynor v. United Producers’ Pipe Line Co., Tex.Civ.App., 9 S.W.2d 425, 426 , the court said: “It has been the view of this court that, giving full effect to the statute governing pleas of privilege, a plea of privilege itself constitutes a denial of every fact that would authorize a suit to be maintained in the county where brought, and that this would include the burden of proving the fact of incorporation of the company, if such were material on the question of venue. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
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.