Hill v. State

1 Citing case

  1. Seelbach v. Clubb

    7 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. App. 1999)   Cited 34 times
    Concluding that earnest money contract was an option contract and not a contract for sale because the seller's only contractual remedy in event of purchaser's default was retention of earnest money and purchaser had no right to occupy the property until the stated time for delivery of possession, which was at closing

    These cases were decided under a now repealed criminal statute, and we do not find them determinative on the issue of an award for punitive damages in a civil case on the issue of malice. Hill v. State, 106 Tex.Crim. 255, 291 S.W. 914 (1925); Brown v. State, 73 Tex.Crim. 571, 166 S.W. 508 (1914); Hatfield v. State, 67 S.W. 110 (Tex.Crim.App. 1902). Seelbach has not proven as a matter of law that he was entitled to punitive damages, nor has he shown that the trial court's finding that he was not entitled to punitive damages was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.