Legal Opinion

Hill v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)

Decided May 8, 1996No. 10-95-302-CVPublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

VANCE, Justice.

The question presented in this bond forfeiture proceeding is whether incarceration in Mexico excuses a criminal defendant from appearing when his case is called for trial. Our answer is that he may be excused by statute, but he and his sureties bear the burden of proving that such incarceration was an uncontrollable circumstance that resulted without his fault. Because the question arose in the summary judgment context and the surety raised fact issues on the affirmative defense, we will reverse the judgment that declared the forfeiture final.

THE FORFEITURE

Raunel…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1985
  2. City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin AuthorityTexas Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Great American Reserve Insurance Co. v. San Antonio Plumbing Supply Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1965
  4. Brownlee v. BrownleeTexas Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Wornick Co. v. CasasTexas Supreme Court · 1993

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Hill v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1997
  2. McKenna v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)2006
  3. McKenna v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)2007
  4. Hill v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1997
  5. Hill v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)1996

6 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