unlawful violation in Texas

2025That provision of the amended agreement, in at Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 9.602 cmt. 2 (Vernon substance, effects an unlawful waiver by the debtor of the Supp.2003)). secured party's obligation to dispose of the collateral in a commercially reasonable manner.19 *881 Conclusion 19 See § 9.501(c), supra note 12 (current version at Tex. Turn–Key's argument that the amended agreement is merely Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 9.603 (Vernon Supp.2003)); an alternative means of payment, exempt from the U.C.C. see also Rabinowitz, 993 S.W.2d at 798–99. as found in the Consolidated Equities case, is simply not

1977This being so, unless the proof factually shows suspicious circumstances or conduct to have been brought to the attention of the officer, visually or through report, which would reasonably motivate a diligent officer to stop appellant to procure information or an explanation, said stopping of appellant was an unlawful violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and the evidence procured as a direct result of said unlawful stop must be excluded under the doctrine of Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 .

1977This being so, unless the proof factually shows suspicious circumstances or conduct to have been brought to the attention of the officer, visually or through report, which would reasonably motivate a diligent officer to stop appellant to procure information or an explanation, said stopping of appellant was an unlawful violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and the evidence procured as a direct result of said unlawful stop must be excluded under the doctrine of Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 .

1970Co. v. Phillips, 274 U.S. 316, 321 , 47 S.Ct. 600, 602 , 71 L.Ed. 1069 : "A cause of action does not consist of facts, but of the unlawful violation of a right which the facts show.

1970Co. v. Phillips, 274 U.S. 316, 321 , 47 S.Ct. 600, 602 , 71 L.Ed. 1069 : "A cause of action does not consist of facts, but of the unlawful violation of a right which the facts show.

1970The number and variety of the facts alleged do not establish more than one cause of action so long as their result, whether they be considered severally or in combination, is the violation of but one right by a single legal wrong.” See also, Connellee v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 54 S.W.2d 577 , (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref.; Galbreath v. Farrell, 275 S.W. 238 (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref.; Davis v. Biggs, 182 S.W.2d 1017, 1019 (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref.; Norman Tobacco & Candy Co. v. Gillette Safety Razor Co., 295 F.2d 362 (5th Cir. 1961).; McCarthy v. Noren, 370 F.2d 845 (9th Cir. 1965).

1970The number and variety of the facts alleged do not establish more than one cause of action so long as their result, whether they be considered severally or in combination, is the violation of but one right by a single legal wrong." *437 See also, Connellee v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 54 S.W.2d 577 , (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref.; Galbreath v. Farrell, 275 S.W. 238 (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref.; Davis v. Biggs, 182 S.W.2d 1017, 1019 (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref.; Norman Tobacco & Candy Co. v. Gillette Safety Razor Co., 295 F.2d 362 (5th Cir. 1961); McCarthy v. Noren, 370 F.2d 845 (9th Cir. 1965).

1970The number and variety of the facts alleged do not establish more than one cause of action so long as their result, whether they be considered severally or in combination, is the violation of but one right by a single legal wrong.” See also, Connellee v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 54 S.W.2d 577 , (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref.; Galbreath v. Farrell, 275 S.W. 238 (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref.; Davis v. Biggs, 182 S.W.2d 1017, 1019 (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref.; Norman Tobacco & Candy Co. v. Gillette Safety Razor Co., 295 F.2d 362 (5th Cir. 1961).; McCarthy v. Noren, 370 F.2d 845 (9th Cir. 1965).

1970The number and variety of the facts alleged do not establish more than one cause of action so long as their result, whether they be considered severally or in combination, is the violation of but one right by a single legal wrong." *437 See also, Connellee v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 54 S.W.2d 577 , (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref.; Galbreath v. Farrell, 275 S.W. 238 (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref.; Davis v. Biggs, 182 S.W.2d 1017, 1019 (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref.; Norman Tobacco & Candy Co. v. Gillette Safety Razor Co., 295 F.2d 362 (5th Cir. 1961); McCarthy v. Noren, 370 F.2d 845 (9th Cir. 1965).

1970The number and variety of the facts alleged do not establish more than one cause of action so long as their result, whether they be considered severally or in combination, is the violation of but one right by a single legal wrong.” See also, Connellee v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 54 S.W.2d 577 , (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref.; Galbreath v. Farrell, 275 S.W. 238 (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref.; Davis v. Biggs, 182 S.W.2d 1017, 1019 (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref.; Norman Tobacco & Candy Co. v. Gillette Safety Razor Co., 295 F.2d 362 (5th Cir. 1961).; McCarthy v. Noren, 370 F.2d 845 (9th Cir. 1965).

1970The number and variety of the facts alleged do not establish more than one cause of action so long as their result, whether they be considered severally or in combination, is the violation of but one right by a single legal wrong." *437 See also, Connellee v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 54 S.W.2d 577 , (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref.; Galbreath v. Farrell, 275 S.W. 238 (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref.; Davis v. Biggs, 182 S.W.2d 1017, 1019 (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref.; Norman Tobacco & Candy Co. v. Gillette Safety Razor Co., 295 F.2d 362 (5th Cir. 1961); McCarthy v. Noren, 370 F.2d 845 (9th Cir. 1965).

1970The number and variety of the facts alleged do not establish more than one cause of action so long as their result, whether they be considered severally or in combination, is the violation of but one right by a single legal wrong.” See also, Connellee v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 54 S.W.2d 577 , (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref.; Galbreath v. Farrell, 275 S.W. 238 (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref.; Davis v. Biggs, 182 S.W.2d 1017, 1019 (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref.; Norman Tobacco & Candy Co. v. Gillette Safety Razor Co., 295 F.2d 362 (5th Cir. 1961).; McCarthy v. Noren, 370 F.2d 845 (9th Cir. 1965).

1970The number and variety of the facts alleged do not establish more than one cause of action so long as their result, whether they be considered severally or in combination, is the violation of but one right by a single legal wrong." *437 See also, Connellee v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 54 S.W.2d 577 , (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref.; Galbreath v. Farrell, 275 S.W. 238 (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref.; Davis v. Biggs, 182 S.W.2d 1017, 1019 (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref.; Norman Tobacco & Candy Co. v. Gillette Safety Razor Co., 295 F.2d 362 (5th Cir. 1961); McCarthy v. Noren, 370 F.2d 845 (9th Cir. 1965).

1957Freeman v. Anderson, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 1081 and cases cited therein.

1944Dallas Trust & Savings Bank v. Brashear, Tex.Com.App., 65 S.W.2d 288 .

1938The mere showing of a cloud on the title of grantee or possession in a third party is insufficient, .for the warrantor is not bound to protect his grantee against a mere trespasser or against an unlawful claim of title. 12 Tex.Jur. 40, 46; Fitzgerald v. Compton, 28 Tex.Civ.App. 202 , *1084 67 S.W. 131 ; Norton v. Schmucker, 83 Tex. 212 , 18 S.W. 720 .

1938The mere showing of a cloud on the title of grantee or possession in a third party is insufficient, .for the warrantor is not bound to protect his grantee against a mere trespasser or against an unlawful claim of title. 12 Tex.Jur. 40, 46; Fitzgerald v. Compton, 28 Tex.Civ.App. 202 , *1084 67 S.W. 131 ; Norton v. Schmucker, 83 Tex. 212 , 18 S.W. 720 .

1938The mere showing of a cloud on the title of grantee or possession in a third party is insufficient, .for the warrantor is not bound to protect his grantee against a mere trespasser or against an unlawful claim of title. 12 Tex.Jur. 40, 46; Fitzgerald v. Compton, 28 Tex.Civ.App. 202 , *1084 67 S.W. 131 ; Norton v. Schmucker, 83 Tex. 212 , 18 S.W. 720 .

1938The mere showing of a cloud on the title of grantee or possession in a third party is insufficient, .for the warrantor is not bound to protect his grantee against a mere trespasser or against an unlawful claim of title. 12 Tex.Jur. 40, 46; Fitzgerald v. Compton, 28 Tex.Civ.App. 202 , *1084 67 S.W. 131 ; Norton v. Schmucker, 83 Tex. 212 , 18 S.W. 720 .