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.
6 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1964–1992 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hubacek v. Ennis State Bankgreen2 sentences1979However, in Hubacek v. Ennis State Bank, 159 Tex. 166 , 317 S.W.2d 30 (1958), the Texas Supreme Court allowed an oral agreement to be admitted into evidence by parol testimony in order that holders of a note would know how they were to apply the first note payments. 1979However, in Hubacek v. Ennis State Bank, 159 Tex. 166 , 317 S.W.2d 30 (1958), the Texas Supreme Court allowed an oral agreement to be admitted into evidence by parol testimony in order that holders of a note would know how they were to apply the first note payments. | 1 | 3 |
Kuper v. Schmidtgreen2 sentences1992Kuper v. Schmidt, 161 Tex. 189 , 338 S.W.2d 948, 952 (1960). 1992Kuper v. Schmidt, 161 Tex. 189 , 338 S.W.2d 948, 952 (1960). | 1 | 1 |
Rapid Transit Railway Co. v. Smithgreen2 sentences1971Co. v. Smith, 98 Tex. 553 , 86 S.W. 322, 323 (1905); White, Ward & Erwin v. Hager, 112 Tex. 516 , 248 S.W. 319, 322 ; 50 Tex. Jur.2d 45, Release, Sec. 35; 23 Tex.Jur.2d 500, Evidence, Sec. 342; and “it matters not that the defendants who invoke the rule are not parties to the instrument.” Cannon v. Pearson (Tex.Sup., 1964) 383 S.W.2d 565, 570 . 1971Co. v. Smith, 98 Tex. 553 , 86 S.W. 322, 323 (1905); White, Ward & Erwin v. Hager, 112 Tex. 516 , 248 S.W. 319, 322 ; 50 Tex. Jur.2d 45, Release, Sec. 35; 23 Tex.Jur.2d 500, Evidence, Sec. 342; and “it matters not that the defendants who invoke the rule are not parties to the instrument.” Cannon v. Pearson (Tex.Sup., 1964) 383 S.W.2d 565, 570 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cannon v. Pearson
green
1 sentence1971Co. v. Smith, 98 Tex. 553 , 86 S.W. 322, 323 (1905); White, Ward & Erwin v. Hager, 112 Tex. 516 , 248 S.W. 319, 322 ; 50 Tex. Jur.2d 45, Release, Sec. 35; 23 Tex.Jur.2d 500, Evidence, Sec. 342; and “it matters not that the defendants who invoke the rule are not parties to the instrument.” Cannon v. Pearson (Tex.Sup., 1964) 383 S.W.2d 565, 570 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
White, Ward & Erwin v. Hager
neutral
2 sentences1971Co. v. Smith, 98 Tex. 553 , 86 S.W. 322, 323 (1905); White, Ward & Erwin v. Hager, 112 Tex. 516 , 248 S.W. 319, 322 ; 50 Tex. Jur.2d 45, Release, Sec. 35; 23 Tex.Jur.2d 500, Evidence, Sec. 342; and “it matters not that the defendants who invoke the rule are not parties to the instrument.” Cannon v. Pearson (Tex.Sup., 1964) 383 S.W.2d 565, 570 . 1971Co. v. Smith, 98 Tex. 553 , 86 S.W. 322, 323 (1905); White, Ward & Erwin v. Hager, 112 Tex. 516 , 248 S.W. 319, 322 ; 50 Tex. Jur.2d 45, Release, Sec. 35; 23 Tex.Jur.2d 500, Evidence, Sec. 342; and “it matters not that the defendants who invoke the rule are not parties to the instrument.” Cannon v. Pearson (Tex.Sup., 1964) 383 S.W.2d 565, 570 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Denman v. Hall
green
2 sentences1964In brief, the extrinsic evidence rule ordinarily requires the exclusion of parol evidence of prior or contemporaneous negotiations, conversations, representations, or statements that would add to or vary the terms of written agreements that are clear on their face.” Our Supreme Court in Denman v. Hall, 144 Tex. 633 , 193 S.W.2d 515, 516 , said: “ * * * the ruie is that parol evidence cannot be received to establish any oral condition relating to the contract if the condition is inconsistent with the terms of the written instrument. 32 C.J.S. 1964In brief, the extrinsic evidence rule ordinarily requires the exclusion of parol evidence of prior or contemporaneous negotiations, conversations, representations, or statements that would add to or vary the terms of written agreements that are clear on their face.” Our Supreme Court in Denman v. Hall, 144 Tex. 633 , 193 S.W.2d 515, 516 , said: “ * * * the ruie is that parol evidence cannot be received to establish any oral condition relating to the contract if the condition is inconsistent with the terms of the written instrument. 32 C.J.S. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.