Legal Opinion · Dissent

Neal v. Wisconsin Hard Chrome, Inc.

Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)

Decided September 29, 2005No. 06-05-00049-CVPublished

1DissentCarter, Justice

Wisconsin Hard Chrome admitted Jimmy Neal was never its employee and objected that the term “employee” lacked specificity.

A request to admit or deny that a particular person was an employee of one of the parties at the time of the accident has routinely been utilized. See Hughes Wood Prods., Inc. v. Wagner, 18 S.W.3d 202, 208 n. 4 (Tex.2000); United States Fire Ins. *895Co. v. Maness, 775 S.W.2d 748, 749-50 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, writ ref'd); Smith v. Univ. of Tex., 664 S.W.2d 180, 189 (Tex.App.-Austin 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Ill. Employers Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 582 S.W.2d 242, 244…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Hughes Wood Products, Inc. v. WagnerTexas Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Smith v. University of TexasCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1984
  3. Illinois Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau v. LewisCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1979
  4. Lewis v. Illinois Employers Insurance Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Halbert v. SylestineCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1956

3 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