Legal Opinion

Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Richmond

Texas Supreme Court

Decided April 26, 1889No. 6292PublishedCited by 91 opinions

Appeal from McLennan. Tried below before Hon. Eugene Williams.

1Opinion of the Court

Station, Chief Justice.—

The nature and result of this action is thus correctly stated in brief of counsel for appellant:

“Appellee sued appellant for three thousand dollars as actual and twenty thousand dollars as exemplary damages, claimed to have resulted to him on account of alleged libelous matter claimed to have been made and published of and concerning appellee by appellant, charging substantially as follows:
“That appellant composed and published a certain discharge list in February, 1884, which was in the form of a printed pamphlet, and which contained among other names the name of…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Philadelphia, Wilmington, & Baltimore Railroad v. QuigleySupreme Court of the United States · 1859
  2. Hunt v. . BennettNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
  3. Detroit Daily Post Co. v. McArthurMichigan Supreme Court · 1868
  4. Maynard v. Fireman's Fund InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
  5. Hewitt v. Pioneer-Press Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1876

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

3Cited by91 opinions

  1. Waste Management of Texas, Inc. v. Texas Disposal Systems Landfill, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 2014
  2. Cunningham v. CunninghamTexas Supreme Court · 1931
  3. International & G. N. R. Co. v. EdmundsonTexas Commission of Appeals · 1920
  4. A. H. Belo & Co. v. FullerTexas Supreme Court · 1892
  5. Bell Publshing Co. v. Garrett Engineering Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1943

86 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