Legal Opinion
Cooney v. Dandridge
Court of Appeals of Texas
Decided May 22, 1913PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHiggins, J.
This case was tried before the court without a jury. No motion for a new trial was filed in the lower court, nor were separate findings of fact and conclusions of law filed by the trial court.
Rules 24 and 25 for the government of the Courts of Civil Appeals (142 S. W. xii), as amended January 24, 1912, read:
“24. The assignment of error must distinctly specify the grounds of error relied on and distinctly set forth in the motion for a new trial in the cause, and a ground of error not distinctly set forth in a motion for a new trial in the cause and not distinctly specified in reference to that…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Clark Loftus v. PearceTexas Supreme Court · 1891
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. MitchellTexas Supreme Court · 1896
- American Rio Grande Land & Irrigation Co. v. Mercedes Plantation Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1913
- San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. GrayCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1913
- City of Austin v. ForbisTexas Supreme Court · 1905
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Stillman v. HirschTexas Supreme Court · 1936
- Craver v. GreerTexas Supreme Court · 1915
- Dees v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1914
- Pollard v. Allen SimsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1914
- McClintic v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1919
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.