Legal Opinion

Gibralter Colorado Life Co. v. Taylor

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided October 31, 1936No. 12009PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LOONEY, Justice.

At the outset, plaintiff moves the court to strike out defendant’s propositions Nos. 1 to 10, inclusive, on the ground that they are mere abstractions. This motion is overruled, as it has been several times held that, since the amendment (Acts 1931, c. 45, § 1) to article 1757, R.S. (Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 1757), propositions are not essential parts of a brief. Standard v. Texas Pacific, etc., Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 47 S.W.(2d) 443; Robert, etc., Co. v. Bains (Tex.Civ.App.) 57 S.W.(2d) 872; Henderson v. Page (Tex.Civ.App.) 78 S.W.(2d) 293.

W. W. Taylor, beneficiary, sued the…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Southland Life Ins. Co. v. NortonTexas Commission of Appeals · 1928
  2. Bailey v. Sovereign Camp, Woodmen of the WorldTexas Supreme Court · 1926
  3. International Harvester Co. of America v. CampbellCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1906
  4. Bailey v. Sovereign Camp, W. O. W.Texas Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Standard v. Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1931

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Colorado Life Co. v. TeagueCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1938
  2. Gibralter Colorado Life Co. v. TaylorTexas Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Colorado Life Co. v. TeagueCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1938
  4. Medina Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. ReaganCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1963

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

Powered by the Exa API