Legal Opinion

Inman v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas

Texas Commission of Appeals

Decided November 24, 1926No. 700-4624PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPowell, P. J.

This case is fully stated in the opinion of the -Court of Civil Appeals. See 283 S. W. 689. The plaintiffs in the trial court recovered damages, and the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded by the Court of Civil Appeals because it decided that fundamental error appeared in the record. Such error, as viewed by the i Court of Civil Appeals, was in the fact that two of the jury’s findings were “so contradictory as to nullify each other and leave nothing upon which to predicate the judgment.” The jury found that, at the time of this collision on the crossing, the locomotive was being…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Texas v. HarringtonTexas Commission of Appeals · 1921
  2. Hines v. ForemanTexas Commission of Appeals · 1922
  3. Humphreys Oil Co. v. LilesTexas Commission of Appeals · 1925
  4. Bowles v. MitchellTexas Commission of Appeals · 1922
  5. Schaff v. WilsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1925

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Friske v. GrahamCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1939
  2. McKenzie Construction Co. v. City of San AntonioTexas Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. DardenCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1929
  4. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Tide LPG, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1970
  5. St. Louis S.W. Ry. Co. of Texas v. InmanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1927

8 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