sweeping rule in Texas

2019The Supreme Court also concluded that the Legislature did not intend “to effectuate such a sweeping waiver of the work-product and attorney-client privileges” based on the words “unless the category of information is expressly made confidential under other law.” Id. (quoting TEX.

2018The court explained that the “primacy of a prior perfected secured creditor’s claim to collateral is the ‘touchstone’ of Article 9, which starts with a sweeping rule of priority and then carves out exceptions to that rule,” but that priority “is not capable of being lost in the manner that the ‘waiver’ approach suggests.” Id.

2017The supreme court’s later decisions in City of North Richland Hills, 370 S.W.3d at 372 , and Bishop, 156 S.W.3d at 584 , undercut reliance on Hampton to support a sweeping rule equating absence of use with absence of the unused component.

2017The supreme court’s later decisions in City of North Richland Hills, 370 S.W.3d at 372 , and Bishop, 156 S.W.3d at 584 , undercut reliance on Hampton to support a sweeping rule equating absence of use with absence of the unused component.

1940ROBISON, 102 Tex. 448 , 119 S. W. 90 , as follows: "The ,provisoabove copied is to be restrict- ed and applied to the preceding enacting clause of the statute and its effect is to limit the scope ,ofthat clause and to except out of its general terms the case stated in the proviso which otherwise would be embraced in the language used. . . .1, "A proviso is substantially an exception. hits natural and appropriate office is to restrain or qualify some preceding matter." 39 TMhS JURISPRUDENCE, p. 192, par. 102.

1940ROBISON, 102 Tex. 448 , 119 S. W. 90 , as follows: "The ,provisoabove copied is to be restrict- ed and applied to the preceding enacting clause of the statute and its effect is to limit the scope ,ofthat clause and to except out of its general terms the case stated in the proviso which otherwise would be embraced in the language used. . . .1, "A proviso is substantially an exception. hits natural and appropriate office is to restrain or qualify some preceding matter." 39 TMhS JURISPRUDENCE, p. 192, par. 102.

1940COUNTRY CLUB, 173 S.W. 570 , 580: "It is the usual and the only safe method, where en act is intended to embrace all but a few, to first enact a sweeping clause, which in- cludes everybody, and then, by proviso or subse- quent articles, to name those who are intended to be exempted. , . .I' The effect of such a proviso or exception is des- cribed by the Supreme Court of Texas in the case of POTTER V.