Evans v. Phipps

4 Citing cases

  1. Kroger Co. v. Keng

    976 S.W.2d 882 (Tex. App. 1998)   Cited 17 times
    Concluding that "an employee's negligence action against his nonsubscribing employer is brought "under the workers' compensation laws of Texas therefore subject to the exemption language" of section 33.002(c) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code

    See TEX.REV.CIV.STAT. ANN. art. 8306, § 1 (repealed by ACTS 1989, 71st Leg., 2d C.S., ch. 1, § 3.03); see also Evans v. Phipps, 152 Tex. 487, 259 S.W.2d 723, 724 (Tex. 1953); Potter v. Garner, 407 S.W.2d 537, 538 (Tex.Civ.App. — Tyler 1966, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The Texas Legislature revamped the Workers' Compensation Act, which became effective January 1, 1993.

  2. FFP Operating Partners, L.P. v. Love

    884 S.W.2d 898 (Tex. App. 1994)   Cited 1 times

    4 (current version found at TEX.LABOR CODE ANN. Sec. 406.033) (Vernon 1994); Pullman Co. v. Ransaw, 254 S.W. 763 (Tex.Comm'n App. 1923, opinion adopted); Phipps v. Evans, 255 S.W.2d 893, 897 (Tex.Civ.App. — Waco), rev'd on other grounds, 152 Tex. 487, 259 S.W.2d 723 (1953); Eisenberg v. Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co., 169 S.W.2d 221, 222 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio 1943, no writ); Railway Express Agency v. Bannister, 46 S.W.2d 372, 373 (Tex.Civ.App. — Austin 1932, no writ); Great West Mill Elevator Co. v. Hess, 281 S.W. 234, 237 (Tex.Civ.App. — Amarillo 1926, no writ); Breckenridge Ice Cold Storage Co. v. Hutchens, 260 S.W. 684, 686 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio 1924, writ dism'd). Love did plead such fact, and Nu-Way did not except to the pleading.

  3. Crawford v. De Long

    324 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Civ. App. 1959)   Cited 7 times

    It was incumbent on appellant to show that appellee had three or more employees as defined by the Act on the date of his injury in order to show that appellee came within its provisions. Sec. 2, Art. 8306, V.A.C.S. See Evans v. Phipps, 152 Tex. 487, 259 S.W.2d 723. The above testimony is, in our opinion, wholly insufficient to raise the issue that Perez was an employee of appellee at such time.

  4. Phipps v. Evans

    262 S.W.2d 430 (Tex. Civ. App. 1953)   Cited 4 times

    The trial of this case in the court below resulted in judgment for appellee. Upon appeal to this Court the judgment was reversed and the cause was remanded to the Court below for another trial for the reasons set forth in the opinion reported in 255 S.W.2d 893. The Supreme Court granted a writ of error and upon consideration of the cause handed down its opinion and entered its order reversing the judgment of this Court and remanding the cause for further consideration here. See Evans v. Phipps, 259 S.W.2d 723. The order of the Supreme Court reversing the judgment of this Court and remanding the cause for further consideration here reads in part as follows: 'Because it is the opinion of the Court that there was error in the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals in its failure to consider several points of error over which it has final jurisdiction, it is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals be reversed and this cause be remanded to that Court for further consideration in accordance with the opinion of this Court.' Under Points 38 to 52, inclusive, appellant presents the contention in his brief that the trial court erred in rendering judgment against him because of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of the jury in response to the various special issues upon which the case was submitted to the jury as set forth in the prior opinion of this Court.