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 2 courts 1965–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v. Mueggegreen2 sentences1974It is stated thusly in Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v. Muegge, 135 Tex. 520 , 143 S.W.2d 763, 767 (Tex.Com.App.1940): “It is settled in this state, and by the weight of authority elsewhere, that such presumption is not evidence but rather a rule of procedure of an ‘administrative assumption’ which ‘vanishes’ or is ‘put to flight’ when positive evidence to the contrary is introduced.” McCormick and Ray, Texas Practice — Evidence, Sec. 53, p. 62 puts it this way: “ * * * the presumption places upon the party against whom it operates the burden of producing evidence sufficient to justify a finding of th 1974It is stated thusly in Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v. Muegge, 135 Tex. 520 , 143 S.W.2d 763, 767 (Tex.Com.App.1940): “It is settled in this state, and by the weight of authority elsewhere, that such presumption is not evidence but rather a rule of procedure of an ‘administrative assumption’ which ‘vanishes’ or is ‘put to flight’ when positive evidence to the contrary is introduced.” McCormick and Ray, Texas Practice — Evidence, Sec. 53, p. 62 puts it this way: “ * * * the presumption places upon the party against whom it operates the burden of producing evidence sufficient to justify a finding of th | 1 | 3 |
Hudiburgh v. Palvicgreen2 sentences1974Robertson Tank Lines v. Van Cleave, 468 S.W.2d 354 (Tex.Sup.1971) ; Whittle v. Saunders, 396 S.W.2d 155 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio, 1965, no writ) ; Hudiburgh v. Palvic, 274 S.W.2d 94 (Tex.Civ.App. — Beaumont, 1955, writ ref’d, n. r. e.); Mitchell v. Ellis, 374 S.W.2d 333 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth, 1963, writ ref’d); Rigsby v. Pitner, 334 S. W.2d 837 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston, 1960, writ ref’d, n. r. e.) ; Thompson v. B. 1965See also Hudiburgh v. Palvic, Tex.Civ.App., 274 S.W.2d 94 . | 1 | 2 |
Alexander v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Mandatory presumptions are unconstitutional.132 Here, the jury charge included the presumption that “knowledge that the assaulted person was a public servant is presumed if the person was wearing a distinctive 128 Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 157 ; Ramos v. State, 991 S.W.2d 430, 434 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d). 129 R.R.III:145. 130 Alexander v. State, 757 S.W.2d 95, 100 (Tex. App. —Dallas 1988, pet. ref’d) (quoting Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 583 , 106 S.Ct. 3101, 3109 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986)); Jimenez v. State, 419 S.W.3d 706, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. ref | 1 | 1 |
Ramos v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Mandatory presumptions are unconstitutional.132 Here, the jury charge included the presumption that “knowledge that the assaulted person was a public servant is presumed if the person was wearing a distinctive 128 Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 157 ; Ramos v. State, 991 S.W.2d 430, 434 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d). 129 R.R.III:145. 130 Alexander v. State, 757 S.W.2d 95, 100 (Tex. App. —Dallas 1988, pet. ref’d) (quoting Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 583 , 106 S.Ct. 3101, 3109 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986)); Jimenez v. State, 419 S.W.3d 706, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. ref | 1 | 1 |
Tomas Jimenez v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Mandatory presumptions are unconstitutional.132 Here, the jury charge included the presumption that “knowledge that the assaulted person was a public servant is presumed if the person was wearing a distinctive 128 Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 157 ; Ramos v. State, 991 S.W.2d 430, 434 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d). 129 R.R.III:145. 130 Alexander v. State, 757 S.W.2d 95, 100 (Tex. App. —Dallas 1988, pet. ref’d) (quoting Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 583 , 106 S.Ct. 3101, 3109 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986)); Jimenez v. State, 419 S.W.3d 706, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. ref | 1 | 1 |
In Re Bruce Terminix Co.green2 sentences2007Accord Hunter, 988 S.W.2d at 473 . 2007Accord Hunter, 988 S.W.2d at 473 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rivercenter Associates v. Rivera
green
2 sentences2015METSO FAILED TO MEET ITS INITIAL BURDEN OF PROOF There is a presumption against the waiver of the constitutional right to a jury trial. 9 The existence of the basic fact of a contractual jury trial waiver gives rise to a presumed fact that the waiver was not knowingly and voluntarily made until the presumed fact is rebutted, and the burden is on the party seeking to enforce the prelitigation contractual jury waiver to rebut the 6 See Rivercenter Associates v. Rivera 858 S.W.2d 366 (Tex. 1993). 7 Id. 8 See Rivercenter Associates v. Rivera 858 S.W.2d 366 (Tex. 1993). 9 Mikey's Houses LLC v. Bank 2015METSO FAILED TO MEET ITS INITIAL BURDEN OF PROOF There is a presumption against the waiver of the constitutional right to a jury trial. 9 The existence of the basic fact of a contractual jury trial waiver gives rise to a presumed fact that the waiver was not knowingly and voluntarily made until the presumed fact is rebutted, and the burden is on the party seeking to enforce the prelitigation contractual jury waiver to rebut the 6 See Rivercenter Associates v. Rivera 858 S.W.2d 366 (Tex. 1993). 7 Id. 8 See Rivercenter Associates v. Rivera 858 S.W.2d 366 (Tex. 1993). 9 Mikey's Houses LLC v. Bank | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Rose v. Clark
red
2 sentences2015Mandatory presumptions are unconstitutional.132 Here, the jury charge included the presumption that “knowledge that the assaulted person was a public servant is presumed if the person was wearing a distinctive 128 Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 157 ; Ramos v. State, 991 S.W.2d 430, 434 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d). 129 R.R.III:145. 130 Alexander v. State, 757 S.W.2d 95, 100 (Tex. App. —Dallas 1988, pet. ref’d) (quoting Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 583 , 106 S.Ct. 3101, 3109 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986)); Jimenez v. State, 419 S.W.3d 706, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. ref 2015Mandatory presumptions are unconstitutional.132 Here, the jury charge included the presumption that “knowledge that the assaulted person was a public servant is presumed if the person was wearing a distinctive 128 Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 157 ; Ramos v. State, 991 S.W.2d 430, 434 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d). 129 R.R.III:145. 130 Alexander v. State, 757 S.W.2d 95, 100 (Tex. App. —Dallas 1988, pet. ref’d) (quoting Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 583 , 106 S.Ct. 3101, 3109 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986)); Jimenez v. State, 419 S.W.3d 706, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. ref | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Almanza v. State
red
1 sentence2015Mandatory presumptions are unconstitutional.132 Here, the jury charge included the presumption that “knowledge that the assaulted person was a public servant is presumed if the person was wearing a distinctive 128 Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 157 ; Ramos v. State, 991 S.W.2d 430, 434 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d). 129 R.R.III:145. 130 Alexander v. State, 757 S.W.2d 95, 100 (Tex. App. —Dallas 1988, pet. ref’d) (quoting Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 583 , 106 S.Ct. 3101, 3109 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986)); Jimenez v. State, 419 S.W.3d 706, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. ref | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In Re Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota N.A.
green
1 sentence2015METSO FAILED TO MEET ITS INITIAL BURDEN OF PROOF There is a presumption against the waiver of the constitutional right to a jury trial. 9 The existence of the basic fact of a contractual jury trial waiver gives rise to a presumed fact that the waiver was not knowingly and voluntarily made until the presumed fact is rebutted, and the burden is on the party seeking to enforce the prelitigation contractual jury waiver to rebut the 6 See Rivercenter Associates v. Rivera 858 S.W.2d 366 (Tex. 1993). 7 Id. 8 See Rivercenter Associates v. Rivera 858 S.W.2d 366 (Tex. 1993). 9 Mikey's Houses LLC v. Bank | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America
green
2 sentences2015Id. 2015Co. of America, 148 S.W.3d 124 , 132 33 (Tex.2004). 1 There is a presumption against the waiver of the constitutional right to a jury trial. 2 The existence of the basic fact of a contractual jury trial waiver gives rise to a presumed fact that the waiver was not knowingly and voluntarily made until the presumed fact is rebutted, and the burden is on the party seeking to enforce the prelitigation contractual jury waiver to rebut the presumption with evidence that the waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made with full awareness of the legal consequences. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Mikey's Houses LLC v. Bank of America, N.A.
green
1 sentence2015METSO FAILED TO MEET ITS INITIAL BURDEN OF PROOF There is a presumption against the waiver of the constitutional right to a jury trial. 9 The existence of the basic fact of a contractual jury trial waiver gives rise to a presumed fact that the waiver was not knowingly and voluntarily made until the presumed fact is rebutted, and the burden is on the party seeking to enforce the prelitigation contractual jury waiver to rebut the 6 See Rivercenter Associates v. Rivera 858 S.W.2d 366 (Tex. 1993). 7 Id. 8 See Rivercenter Associates v. Rivera 858 S.W.2d 366 (Tex. 1993). 9 Mikey's Houses LLC v. Bank | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Mitchell v. Ellis
green
1 sentence1974Robertson Tank Lines v. Van Cleave, 468 S.W.2d 354 (Tex.Sup.1971) ; Whittle v. Saunders, 396 S.W.2d 155 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio, 1965, no writ) ; Hudiburgh v. Palvic, 274 S.W.2d 94 (Tex.Civ.App. — Beaumont, 1955, writ ref’d, n. r. e.); Mitchell v. Ellis, 374 S.W.2d 333 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth, 1963, writ ref’d); Rigsby v. Pitner, 334 S. W.2d 837 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston, 1960, writ ref’d, n. r. e.) ; Thompson v. B. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Rigsby v. Pitner
green
1 sentence1974Robertson Tank Lines v. Van Cleave, 468 S.W.2d 354 (Tex.Sup.1971) ; Whittle v. Saunders, 396 S.W.2d 155 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio, 1965, no writ) ; Hudiburgh v. Palvic, 274 S.W.2d 94 (Tex.Civ.App. — Beaumont, 1955, writ ref’d, n. r. e.); Mitchell v. Ellis, 374 S.W.2d 333 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth, 1963, writ ref’d); Rigsby v. Pitner, 334 S. W.2d 837 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston, 1960, writ ref’d, n. r. e.) ; Thompson v. B. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Robertson Tank Lines, Inc. v. Van Cleave
green
1 sentence1974Robertson Tank Lines v. Van Cleave, 468 S.W.2d 354 (Tex.Sup.1971) ; Whittle v. Saunders, 396 S.W.2d 155 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio, 1965, no writ) ; Hudiburgh v. Palvic, 274 S.W.2d 94 (Tex.Civ.App. — Beaumont, 1955, writ ref’d, n. r. e.); Mitchell v. Ellis, 374 S.W.2d 333 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth, 1963, writ ref’d); Rigsby v. Pitner, 334 S. W.2d 837 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston, 1960, writ ref’d, n. r. e.) ; Thompson v. B. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Whittle v. Saunders
green
1 sentence1974Robertson Tank Lines v. Van Cleave, 468 S.W.2d 354 (Tex.Sup.1971) ; Whittle v. Saunders, 396 S.W.2d 155 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio, 1965, no writ) ; Hudiburgh v. Palvic, 274 S.W.2d 94 (Tex.Civ.App. — Beaumont, 1955, writ ref’d, n. r. e.); Mitchell v. Ellis, 374 S.W.2d 333 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth, 1963, writ ref’d); Rigsby v. Pitner, 334 S. W.2d 837 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston, 1960, writ ref’d, n. r. e.) ; Thompson v. B. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.