Legal Opinion

Jones v. Strayhorn

Texas Supreme Court

Decided February 18, 1959No. A-6890PublishedCited by 98 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Norvell

*423We are here concerned with the allocation of receivership expenses as costs of suit. For convenience we shall refer to the numerous petitioners as the Jones plaintiffs and the respondents (except the State) as the Strayhorn defendants. The State of Texas was an intervening party in the District Court and is alligned with the Strayhorn defendants. When necessary, the State will be referred to by name. Upon intervening the State successfully sought the appointment of a receiver and a number of the defendants joined in the application. See, Jones v. Springer, Texas Civ. App., 256 S.W. 2d 1016,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Ellis v. Vernon Ice, Light, & Water Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Strayhorn v. JonesTexas Supreme Court · 1957
  3. Espuela Land & Cattle Co. v. BindleCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1895
  4. Ellis v. Vernon Ice, Light, & Water Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1893
  5. Taylor v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1936

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

3Cited by98 opinions

  1. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Johnson v. Fourth Court of AppealsTexas Supreme Court · 1985
  3. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. RobinsonTexas Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Hickson v. Moya, Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)1996
  5. Buntion v. HarmonCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1992

93 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