Legal Opinion

New Amsterdam Casualty Company v. Jordan

Texas Supreme Court

Decided June 20, 1962No. A-8885PublishedCited by 57 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STEAKLEY, Justice.

This is a compensation case in which respondent (plaintiff below) had judgment based on jury findings of total incapacity for fifty-five weeks and partial incapacity for seventy-five additional weeks. Respondent appealed and urged nine points of error. The Court of Civil Appeals classified the “principal contentions” of respondent as six, overruled five, and sustained the sixth described by the Court of Civil Appeals as “The Trial Court abused its discretion in denying a new trial on the ground of material 'newly discovered evidence’ of additional surgery performed on…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Mitchell v. BassTexas Supreme Court · 1862
  2. Houston & Texas Central Railway Co. v. ForsythTexas Supreme Court · 1878
  3. Conwill v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Anshutz v. Louisville Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1913
  5. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad v. EvansTexas Supreme Court · 1952

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

3Cited by57 opinions

  1. Jackson v. Van WinkleTexas Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Ski River Development, Inc. v. McCalla, Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)2005
  3. Estate of Arrington v. FieldsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1979
  4. Black v. Wills, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1988
  5. Rivera v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2008

52 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