Legal Opinion

Armour & Co. v. Tomlin

Texas Commission of Appeals

Decided May 26, 1933No. 1662—6134PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CRITZ, Judge.

This suit was prosecuted in the district court of Dallas county, Tex., by Mrs. Myrtle Tomlin, a widow, whom we shall hereafter designate as plaintiff, against Armour & Co., a corporation, and Cecil Wise, whom we shall hereafter designate as defendants. The plaintiff’s alleged cause of action was for damages for personal injuries, and injuries to her automobile, resulting from a collision of a truck belonging to Armour & Co. and driven by Wise, with the automobile of plaintiff while she was driving same on a public street in the city of Dallas. The case was submitted to a jury in…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Texas Power & Light Co. v. CulwellTexas Commission of Appeals · 1931
  2. Graves v. HaynesTexas Commission of Appeals · 1921
  3. Olds Motor Works v. ChurchillCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
  4. Armour & Co. v. TomlinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1931
  5. Freybe v. TiernanTexas Supreme Court · 1890

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

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Dallas Railway & Terminal Co. v. EctorTexas Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. NoackTexas Commission of Appeals · 1933
  3. Traders & General Ins. Co. v. WrightCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1936
  4. Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Railway Co. v. SchmidtTexas Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Beaumont, S. L. & W. Ry. Co. v. SchmidtTexas Commission of Appeals · 1934

30 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