Legal Opinion

Wright v. Maddox

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided July 2, 1926No. 7026PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McCLENDON, O. J.

The parties will be designated appellant and appellee.. Appellee has objected to appellant’s brief, on the ground that no assignments of error are copied therein. Appellant has filed a 21-page paper containing 32 assignments of error, and has moved that this paper be considered in connection with the brief. We might grant this motion but for the fact that upon examination of the brief we find it is not prepared in substantial compliance with the rules for briefing, and for that reason we. have concluded to strike out the brief and require appellant to rebrief the case in…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Roberson v. HughesTexas Commission of Appeals · 1921
  2. Shanks v. CarrollTexas Supreme Court · 1878
  3. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. MiddletonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1901
  4. Texas Land Co. v. WilliamsTexas Supreme Court · 1878
  5. J. M. Guffey Petroleum Co. v. NearnCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1907

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Wagley v. FambroughCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1942
  2. Lang v. HarwoodCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1940
  3. Panhandle & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. BurtCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1934
  4. Standard Acc. Ins. Co. v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1928
  5. Shaw v. Centerfield Oil Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1928

17 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