Legal Opinion

Doeppenschmidt v. City of New Braunfels

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided November 17, 1926No. 7093. [fn*]Published

1Opinion

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellees for the first time call our attention to the following cases which, they contend, are in conflict with our holding regarding R. S. art. 6698; Booth v. Dallas, 179 S. W. 302, Gill v. Dallas, 209 S. W. 209, Graham v. Seal, 235 S. W. 671, and Prater v. Storey. 249 S. W. 871, by the Courts of Civil Appeals, and Ex parte Parr, 82 Tex. Cr. R. 525, 200 S. W. 405, and Ex parte Beck, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 20, 241 S. W. 174, by the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Booth v. Dallas and Prater v. Storey are manifestly not in point and need not be further noted.

While in Dallas v. Gill…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ex Parte ParrCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1918
  2. Gill v. City of DallasCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1919
  3. Prater v. StoreyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1923
  4. Ex Parte BeckCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1921
  5. Interstate Automobile Ins. Co. v. EdensCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1921

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API