bona fide claim in Texas

2013See Green v. State, 153 Tex.Crim. 442 , 221 S.W.2d 612, 616 (1949) (op. on reh’g) (farmer who killed hogs that he mistakenly believed belonged to him was not required to show that his mistake was reasonable because "[a]n intent to steal property and a bona fide claim of right to take it are incompatible.

2013See Green v. State, 153 Tex.Crim. 442 , 221 S.W.2d 612, 616 (1949) (op. on reh’g) (farmer who killed hogs that he mistakenly believed belonged to him was not required to show that his mistake was reasonable because "[a]n intent to steal property and a bona fide claim of right to take it are incompatible.

2004Corp. v. West , 677 S.W.2d 669, 677 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (stating that the lack of knowledge about the usury laws or their application to a particular transaction did not constitute a bona fide error).

2004Corp. v. West, 677 S.W.2d 669, 677 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (stating that the lack of knowledge about the usury laws or their application to a particular transaction did not constitute a bona fide error).

2008Callaway v. East Tex. Gov = t Credit Union , 619 S.W.2d 411, 415 (Tex. Civ.

1985Callaway v. East Texas Government Credit Union, 619 S.W.2d 411, 415 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e.).

2005PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.02. [12] Id. § 29.01(1). [13] Herrin v. State, 125 S.W.3d 436, 441 (Tex. Crim.App.2002) (citing Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192, 197 (Tex.Crim.App.2001)). [14] 800 S.W.2d 267, 269 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no pet.). [15] Id. [16] Id. [17] Id. [18] Id. [19] 509 S.W.2d 582, 584-86 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974). [20] In Wharton's Criminal Law, Vol. 2 Sec. 550, p. 250, it is said: Except in a few jurisdictions, a creditor's taking of money from his debtor to satisfy or secure the obligation, either by force or intimidation, is not regarded as robbery, the generally accepted d

2005PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.02. [12] Id. § 29.01(1). [13] Herrin v. State, 125 S.W.3d 436, 441 (Tex. Crim.App.2002) (citing Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192, 197 (Tex.Crim.App.2001)). [14] 800 S.W.2d 267, 269 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no pet.). [15] Id. [16] Id. [17] Id. [18] Id. [19] 509 S.W.2d 582, 584-86 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974). [20] In Wharton's Criminal Law, Vol. 2 Sec. 550, p. 250, it is said: Except in a few jurisdictions, a creditor's taking of money from his debtor to satisfy or secure the obligation, either by force or intimidation, is not regarded as robbery, the generally accepted d

2005The rule is different however, in some jurisdictions, as to the forcible taking of property for the purpose of collecting uncertain, unliquidated damages, and such a taking will support a prosecution for robbery. 21: Crawford , 509 S.W.2d at 584-86 (selected footnotes and citations omitted; footnotes in original). 22: See id. at 586. 23: See Schweinle , 915 S.W.2d at 19 ; Saunders , 840 S.W.2d at 391-92 . 24: See Boykin v. State , 818 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tex. Crim.

2005The rule is different however, in some jurisdictions, as to the forcible taking of property for the purpose of collecting uncertain, unliquidated damages, and such a taking will support a prosecution for robbery. [21] Crawford, 509 S.W.2d at 584-86 (selected footnotes and citations omitted; footnotes in original). [22] See id. at 586 . [23] See Schweinle, 915 S.W.2d at 19 ; Saunders, 840 S.W.2d at 391-92 . [24] See Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). [25] TEX.

2000See Mitchell , 943 S.W.2d at 438 (primary objective in statutory construction is to give effect to legislature's intent).

2000See Mitchell, 943 S.W.2d at 438 (primary objective in statutory construction is to give effect to legislature’s intent).

2005The rule is different however, in some jurisdictions, as to the forcible taking of property for the purpose of collecting uncertain, unliquidated damages, and such a taking will support a prosecution for robbery. 21: Crawford , 509 S.W.2d at 584-86 (selected footnotes and citations omitted; footnotes in original). 22: See id. at 586. 23: See Schweinle , 915 S.W.2d at 19 ; Saunders , 840 S.W.2d at 391-92 . 24: See Boykin v. State , 818 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tex. Crim.

2005The rule is different however, in some jurisdictions, as to the forcible taking of property for the purpose of collecting uncertain, unliquidated damages, and such a taking will support a prosecution for robbery. [21] Crawford, 509 S.W.2d at 584-86 (selected footnotes and citations omitted; footnotes in original). [22] See id. at 586 . [23] See Schweinle, 915 S.W.2d at 19 ; Saunders, 840 S.W.2d at 391-92 . [24] See Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). [25] TEX.

1995If it is shown “by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error,” liability will not attach. 15 U.S.C.A. § 1640 (c); McGowan, 569 F.2d at 848 n. 3.

1979McGowan v. King, Inc., 569 F.2d 845, 849 (5th Cir. 1978); Mirabal v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 537 F.2d 871, 877 (7th Cir. 1976).

1992Co., 639 S.W.2d 690, 691 (Tex.1982) (assumed that a pleading was a charge of interest and found that there was a bona fide error which prevented penalties for usury).

1992Co., 639 S.W.2d 690, 691 (Tex.1982) (assumed that a pleading was a charge of interest and found that there was a bona fide error which prevented penalties for usury).

1984See McDonald v. Savoy, 501 S.W.2d 400 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1973, no writ); TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 5069-8.01(f) (Vernon Supp.1984).

1983McDonald v. Savoy, 501 S.W.2d 400 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1973, no writ).

1981We believe the most appropriate definition of “bona fide error” appears in Mirabel v. GMAC, 537 F.2d 871 , 878 (7th Cir. 1976), a Truth in Lending case: “A bona fide error is an error which is made in the course of a good faith attempt at compliance with statute requirements.” When a statute expressly outlines the necessary procedures for obtaining a writ, it is our opinion that a good faith attempt to comply with that statute must be shown.

1981We believe the most appropriate definition of “bona fide error” appears in Mirabel v. GMAC, 537 F.2d 871 , 878 (7th Cir. 1976), a Truth in Lending case: “A bona fide error is an error which is made in the course of a good faith attempt at compliance with statute requirements.” When a statute expressly outlines the necessary procedures for obtaining a writ, it is our opinion that a good faith attempt to comply with that statute must be shown.

1973The sole issue remaining is whether ap-pellee pleaded and proved by a preponderance of the evidence each element of a bona fide claim against the resident defendant, which was same claim asserted against the defendant in the controverting affidavit. 1 McDonald, Texas Civil Practice, Sec. 4.10.2, p. 441 (1965 Rev.Ed.); Gray v. Gulf Oil Corporation, 416 S.W.2d 875, 877 (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth 1967, no writ).

1967McDonald Texas Civil Practice Vol. 1, Sec. 4.10.2, 1 Gray v. Gulf Oil Corporation, Tex.Civ.App., 416 S.W.2d 875 , Fort Worth, n. w. h.

2021See Lasiter v. State, 283 S.W.3d 909, 923 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009, pet. ref’d); Durgan v State, 259 S.W.3d 219 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2008, no pet.).

2021See Rodriguez, 329 S.W.3d at 77 ; Purchase, 84 S.W.3d at 699 .

2021Ex parte Brown, 205 S.W.3d 538, 545 (Tex. Crim.

2015“A ‘bona fide error’ is an error which is made in the course of a good-faith attempt at compliance with statutory requirements.” CA Partners v. Spears, 274 S.W.3d 51, 71 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) (citing Callaway v. E.

2015“In other words, the bona fide error defense requires a creditor to prove (1) that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error and (2) that the creditor adopted procedures which were designed to avoid and prevent these types of errors.” Torres v. Mid-State Trust II, 895 S.W.2d 828, 831 (Tex.App-Corpus Christi 1995, writ denied) (construing predecessor to current statute).

2015“In other words, the bona fide error defense requires a creditor to prove (1) that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error and (2) that the creditor adopted procedures which were designed to avoid and prevent these types of errors.” Torres v. Mid-State Trust II, 895 S.W.2d 828, 831 (Tex.App-Corpus Christi 1995, writ denied) (construing predecessor to current statute).

2014Comm’n of Tex., 745 S.W.2d 918, 926-27 (Tex.App.Austin 1988, writ denied)); see also Beal, supra, 56 Baylor L.Rev. at 16 (“[N]otice and comment rulemaking procedures must be utilized unless a bona fide exception exists.”).

2013Gornick v. State, 947 S.W.2d 678, 680 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1997, no pet.) (“If a person is acting under a bona fide claim of right, albeit ill-founded, he is not guilty of a crime.