Legal Opinion

Whitfield v. City of Paris

Texas Supreme Court

Decided April 26, 1892No. 7275PublishedCited by 47 opinions

Ho statement is necessary.

1Opinion of the Court

TARLTON, Judge;

Section B. — This appeal is prosecuted from a judgment rendered by the District Court of Lamar County, in favor of appellee. The appellant sued appellee to recover for personal injuries inflicted upon her by one Beatis, in shooting at an unmuzzled dog, in the attempted enforcement of an ordinance of the city of Paris forbidding dogs to run at large.

The correctness of the action of the trial court in sustaining a gen-. eral demurrer to the plaintiff's petition is the only question to be determined.

This petition, as stated by appellant, alleged the incorporation of the city under…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. City of Galveston v. PosnainskyTexas Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Keller v. City of Corpus ChristiTexas Supreme Court · 1879
  3. City of Corsicana v. WhiteTexas Supreme Court · 1882
  4. Harrison v. City of ColumbusTexas Supreme Court · 1876

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. W.D. Yett, Mayor v. CookTexas Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Dillard v. Austin Independent School DistrictCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1991
  3. City of Dallas v. SmithTexas Supreme Court · 1937
  4. City of Tyler v. Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'nTexas Commission of Appeals · 1926
  5. City of Fort Worth v. WigginsTexas Commission of Appeals · 1928

42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API