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.
8 Texas opinions name it 4 courts 1940–1987 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 |
|---|---|---|
Simonds v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co.green2 sentences1976In Simonds v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 134 Tex. 332 , 136 S.W.2d 207, 209 (Tex.Com.App., 1940, opinion adopted) that court stated: “Evidence which, uncontradicted and unexplained, would be prima facie evidence of a fact becomes insufficient to raise an issue of fact when the other facts in evidence conclusively prove that the fact sought to be shown by the prima facie evidence or presumption of fact does not exist. 1976In Simonds v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 134 Tex. 332 , 136 S.W.2d 207, 209 (Tex.Com.App., 1940, opinion adopted) that court stated: “Evidence which, uncontradicted and unexplained, would be prima facie evidence of a fact becomes insufficient to raise an issue of fact when the other facts in evidence conclusively prove that the fact sought to be shown by the prima facie evidence or presumption of fact does not exist. | 1 | 2 |
Benson v. Stategreen1 sentence1987Boozer v. State, 717 S.W.2d 608, 610 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); Benson v. State, 661 S.W.2d 708, 714 (Tex.Cr.App.1982). | 1 | 1 |
Boozer v. Statered1 sentence1987Boozer v. State, 717 S.W.2d 608, 610 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); Benson v. State, 661 S.W.2d 708, 714 (Tex.Cr.App.1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Trussell v. State
neutral
1 sentence1973Cf. Trussel v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 426 S.W.2d 233 . | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Uptmore v. State
green
2 sentences1957It has reference and applies only to the mode or manner by and through which facts essential to the conviction might be established. 20 Am.Jur., Evidence, Sec. 4, page 35, defines the term as follows: “The term ‘prima facie evidence’ which frequently appears in cases, denotes evidence which, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient in a jury case to carry the case to the jury and to sustain a verdict in favor of the issue which it supports hut which may be contradicted by other evidence, and is thus distinguished from conclusive evidence which the law does not allow to be contradicted.” 1957It has reference and applies only to the mode or manner by and through which facts essential to the conviction might be established. 20 Am.Jur., Evidence, Sec. 4, page 35, defines the term as follows: “The term ‘prima facie evidence’ which frequently appears in cases, denotes evidence which, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient in a jury case to carry the case to the jury and to sustain a verdict in favor of the issue which it supports hut which may be contradicted by other evidence, and is thus distinguished from conclusive evidence which the law does not allow to be contradicted.” | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Ratliff v. State
green
2 sentences1957It has reference and applies only to the mode or manner by and through which facts essential to the conviction might be established. 20 Am.Jur., Evidence, Sec. 4, page 35, defines the term as follows: “The term ‘prima facie evidence’ which frequently appears in cases, denotes evidence which, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient in a jury case to carry the case to the jury and to sustain a verdict in favor of the issue which it supports hut which may be contradicted by other evidence, and is thus distinguished from conclusive evidence which the law does not allow to be contradicted.” 1957It has reference and applies only to the mode or manner by and through which facts essential to the conviction might be established. 20 Am.Jur., Evidence, Sec. 4, page 35, defines the term as follows: “The term ‘prima facie evidence’ which frequently appears in cases, denotes evidence which, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient in a jury case to carry the case to the jury and to sustain a verdict in favor of the issue which it supports hut which may be contradicted by other evidence, and is thus distinguished from conclusive evidence which the law does not allow to be contradicted.” | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Crecelius v. State
neutral
1 sentence1953Crecelius v. State, 155 Tex. Cr. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
State v. Lowenstein
green
2 sentences1952The case of State v. Lowenstein, 109 Ohio St. 393 , 142 N. E. 897 (1924), upon which the court in the Colin case placed great reliance. tends to support our position in this matter. 1952The case of State v. Lowenstein, 109 Ohio St. 393 , 142 N. E. 897 (1924), upon which the court in the Colin case placed great reliance. tends to support our position in this matter. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Texas Indemnity Insurance v. Middlebrook
green
1 sentence1943“Evidence which, uncontradicted and unexplained, would be prima facie evidence of a fact becomes insufficient to raise an issue of fact when the other facts in evidence conclusively prove that the fact sought to be shown by the prima facie evidence or presumption of fact does not exist.” See Simonds v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 134 Tex. 332 , 114 S.W.2d 226 , 136 S. W.2d 207, 209 , and authorities cited. | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Herring v. Federal Life Ins.
green
1 sentence1940Geffert v. Yorktown Independent School District, Tex.Com.App., 290 S.W. 1083, 1085 ; American Surety Company of New York v. Cross, Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 470, 473 ; Moore v. Wooten, Tex.Com.App., 280 S.W. 742, 747 ; Martinez v. Gutierrez, Tex. Com. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Geffert v. Yorktown Independent School Dist.
green
1 sentence1940Geffert v. Yorktown Independent School District, Tex.Com.App., 290 S.W. 1083, 1085 ; American Surety Company of New York v. Cross, Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 470, 473 ; Moore v. Wooten, Tex.Com.App., 280 S.W. 742, 747 ; Martinez v. Gutierrez, Tex. Com. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
American Surety Co. of New York v. Cross
neutral
1 sentence1940Geffert v. Yorktown Independent School District, Tex.Com.App., 290 S.W. 1083, 1085 ; American Surety Company of New York v. Cross, Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 470, 473 ; Moore v. Wooten, Tex.Com.App., 280 S.W. 742, 747 ; Martinez v. Gutierrez, Tex. Com. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
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.