Bryan v. Watumull

33 Citing cases

  1. Dall. Area Rapid Transit v. Morris

    434 S.W.3d 752 (Tex. App. 2014)   Cited 23 times
    Holding public transit authority is a common carrier

    We review a trial court's decision to submit or refuse a particular instruction under an abuse of discretion standard. Shupe v. Lingafelter, 192 S.W.3d 577, 579 (Tex.2006); Bryan v. Watumull, 230 S.W.3d 503, 508 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, pet. denied). Submission of the charge is the trial court's responsibility, and the trial court is given wide latitude to determine the propriety of explanatory instructions and definitions.

  2. Dall. Area Rapid Transit v. Morris

    No. 05-12-01133-CV (Tex. App. May. 29, 2014)

    We review a trial court's decision to submit or refuse a particular instruction under an abuse of discretion standard. Shupe v. Lingafelter, 192 S.W.3d 577, 579 (Tex. 2006); Bryan v. Watumull, 230 S.W.3d 503, 508 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, pet. denied). Submission of the charge is the trial court's responsibility, and the trial court is given wide latitude to determine the propriety of explanatory instructions and definitions.

  3. In re Estate

    243 S.W.3d 831 (Tex. App. 2008)   Cited 68 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding issue waived because appellant did not analyze legal authority and made "no suggested application of it to the facts"

    A formal bill of exception must be presented to the trial court for its approval and, if the parties agree to the contents of the bill, the trial court must sign the bill and file it with the trial court clerk. TEX.R.APP. P. 33.2(c)(1), (2); Bryan v. Watumull, 230 S.W.3d 503, 516 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, no pet. h.). If the parties or the trial court do not agree with the contents of the bill, the rules provide a procedure for presenting the bill. TEX.R.APP. P. 33.2(C)(2); Bryan, 230 S.W.3d at 516.

  4. Rodriguez v. Rangel

    679 S.W.3d 890 (Tex. App. 2023)   Cited 4 times

    It could also "disregard even uncontradicted and unimpeached testimony from disinterested witnesses." City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 820; Bryan v. Watumull, 230 S.W.3d 503, 512 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, pet. denied).

  5. Benge v. Williams

    472 S.W.3d 684 (Tex. App. 2014)   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Analyzing "Casteel-type charge error" and explaining that a theory may be invalidly submitted in a broad-form question if it is not supported by legally sufficient evidence

    The Panel evaluates all medical and surgical procedures, determines if disclosure of risks is required, and if so, determines how much disclosure is required. Bryan v. Watumull, 230 S.W.3d 503, 508 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, pet. denied). The Panel creates two lists reflecting its conclusions, Lists A and B. "If the procedure requires some disclosure of the risks involved in the treatment, it is placed on List A. However, if the Panel determines that no disclosure is required, the procedure is placed on List B."

  6. Jim P. Benge, M.D. v. Williams

    NO. 01-12-00578-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 18, 2014)

    The Panel evaluates all medical and surgical procedures, determines if disclosure of risks is required, and if so, determines how much disclosure is required. Bryan v. Watumull, 230 S.W.3d 503, 508 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, pet. denied). The Panel creates two lists reflecting its conclusions, Lists A and B. "If the procedure requires some disclosure of the risks involved in the treatment, it is placed on List A. However, if the Panel determines that no disclosure is required, the procedure is placed on List B."

  7. Halmos v. Bombardier Aero

    314 S.W.3d 606 (Tex. App. 2010)   Cited 56 times

    A proper jury instruction (1) assists the jury, (2) accurately states the law, and (3) is supported by the pleadings and evidence. See Tex. Workers' Comp. Ins. Fund v. Mandlbauer, 34 S.W.3d 909, 912 (Tex. 2000) (per curiam); Bryan v. Watumutt, 230 S.W.3d 503, 508 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, pet. denied). An instruction that misstates the law as applicable to the facts or misleads the jury is improper.

  8. Ellison v. Three Rivers Acquisition LLC

    No. 13-17-00046-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 15, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    The trial court has considerable discretion in deciding whether a proposed instruction is necessary and proper to submit to the jury. State Farm Lloyds v. Nicolau, 951 S.W.2d 444, 451-52 (Tex. 1997); see Bryan v. Watumull, 230 S.W.3d 503, 508 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2007, pet. denied) (holding trial court is afforded more discretion when submitting instructions than when submitting questions

  9. Shelby v. James

    No. 02-20-00052-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 23, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Thus, Shelby cannot complain about the trial court's failure to take action on the formal bill. Cf. Bryan v. Watumull, 230 S.W.3d 503, 516-17 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2007, pet. denied) (holding that formal bill of exceptions not presented to trial judge or agreed to by appellee preserved nothing for review). Issues in Reply Brief

  10. Walsh v. Carswell Cherokee Tr.

    NO. 03-19-00735-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 1, 2021)

    However, a docket-sheet entry generally "forms no part of the record which may be considered . . . [but] is a memorandum made for the clerk's and the trial court's convenience." Bryan v. Watumull, 230 S.W.3d 503, 507 n.2 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, pet. denied). While the final judgment also makes reference to a partial summary judgment, it does not identify what specific relief the trial court awarded on summary judgment, reciting merely that "[a]ll matters in controversy" that were not determined by partial summary judgment "were submitted to the Court for determination" after the court "heard evidence and arguments."