Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad v. Alvarez
Court of Appeals of Texas
1DissentEarl W. Smith, Justice
For the reasons set out below, I respectfully dissent. I believe that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow evidence of intoxication; in refusing to allow MKT’s requested trial amendment; and in refusing to allow the testimony of one of MKt’s expert witnesses. I would reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The trial court should not have excluded evidence of intoxication because the danger of creating unfair prejudice in the jurors’ minds did not substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence. 2 Ray, Texas Law of Evidence § 1481, at 167-68 (3rd ed. 1980). The…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Benoit v. WilsonTexas Supreme Court · 1951
- Stone v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1977
- Simmonds v. St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railway Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1936
- Edmiston v. Texas & N. O. R.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1940
- Edmiston v. Texas & New Orleans RailroadTexas Supreme Court · 1940
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.