Legal Opinion

Texas v. Texarkana MacH. Shops

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided January 5, 1928No. 3478PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLevy, J.

(after stating the facts as above). The street in controversy had origin and was created by prescription, as determined by the jury. The appellee, as proven, has rights of an abutting proprietor. The appellant, as proven, is the owner of the fee of the land covered by the street next to its lot, and has placed thereon one or more structures. There has not been cessation of the use of the street by the general public or the abutting proprietors. The public and the abut-ters continued to use the street to the time of the erection of the obstruction by defendants. The appellee seeks by…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Smith v. McDowellIllinois Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Haverbekken v. Hale, County JudgeTexas Supreme Court · 1918
  3. Pearsall v. Board of SupervisorsMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Witsen v. GutmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1894
  5. Horton v. WilliamsMichigan Supreme Court · 1894

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Pittman v. City of AmarilloCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1980
  2. Town of Palm Valley v. Johnson, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2000
  3. Lindauer v. HillSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1953
  4. Gulf View Courts, Inc. v. Galveston CountyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1941
  5. El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 v. City of El PasoDistrict Court, W.D. Texas · 1955

14 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