Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. London

Texas Supreme Court

Decided March 4, 1964No. A-9601Published

1ConcurrenceNorvell, Justice

I am in agreement with the opinion of Mr. Justice GRIFFIN. However, the dissent of the Chief Justice raises certain matters which may properly be discussed. The conclusion is expressed in this dissent that the two clauses of the paragraph in question1 are utterly incompatible and repugnant and hence the entire paragraph should be declared meaningless and void.

To me this is a stare decisis case and “we do not write on a clean slate.” Massachusetts v. United States, 333 U.S. 611, 68 S.Ct. 747, 92 L.Ed. 968. Much of what was recently said by us in Moss v. Gibbs, Tex.Sup., 370 S.W.2d 452 (1963)…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Johnson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1908
  2. Massachusetts v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  3. Petroleum Casualty Co. v. SealeTexas Commission of Appeals · 1929
  4. Texas Employers' Insurance v. HolmesTexas Supreme Court · 1946
  5. Moss v. GibbsTexas Supreme Court · 1963

5 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