Legal Opinion

Pinchback v. Hockles

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 22, 1942No. Motion No. 15558. (Cause No. 7736.)PublishedCited by 89 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Alexander

In the above cause the respondents, Minnie Hockles and W. B. West, have filed herein a motion to issue the mandate without the payment of costs. They have filed affidavits of inability to pay the costs as provided in Rule 508, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion was duly contested by petitioners as authorized by Rule 355, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

The affidavit filed in support of the motion and the contest show that the respondent West is a practicing attorney of long experience and considerable practice, who has his own office, and owns. his office equipment, an automobile, and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Tarrant County Water Control & Improvement Dist. No. 1Texas Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Boone v. McBeeCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1926
  3. Black v. SnedecorCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1910
  4. Texas Bank & Trust Co. v. TeichCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1926
  5. Williams v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1928

3Cited by89 opinions

  1. Whitehead v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2004
  2. Slay v. Burnett TrustTexas Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Higgins v. Randall County Sheriff's OfficeTexas Supreme Court · 2008
  4. Griffin Industries, Inc. v. Honorable Thirteenth Court of AppealsTexas Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Allred v. LowryTexas Supreme Court · 1980

84 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