Legal Opinion · Dissent

McCardell v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided April 25, 1962No. 6519Published

1DissentHightower, Chief Justice

I cannot agree with the result of the conclusions reached by the majority.

Appellant’s motion to suppress was a blanket motion. In a general fashion it commingled matters admissible in a case of this nature, such as prior injuries, with objectionable matters such as prior claims and settlements, and requested the court to exclude them en bloc’. I am of the opinion that the same rule governs in this situation as that applied where a general objection is made to evidence, part of which is admissible and part of which is not. In such instance the objection is properly overruled. 41-B Tex.Jur.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. City of Gladewater v. DillardCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1958

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API