Munoz v. Bollack Store

1 Citing case

  1. Trousdale v. Texas & N. O. R. Co.

    264 S.W.2d 489 (Tex. Civ. App. 1954)   Cited 21 times
    Listing overt acts of misconduct that can be inquired about

    Traders General Ins. Co. v. Lincecum, 130 Tex. 220, 107 S.W.2d 585, analyzed the confusion in the authorities and then expressly overruled those decisions which had tolerated considerations of mental operations. Cases in this category, which have strictly adhered to that rule, or which base their results on the overt acts present or contain only a trace of any consideration of mental operations, are: Ford v. Carpenter, 147 Tex. 447, 216 S.W.2d 558; City of Amarillo v. Huddleston, 137 Tex. 226, 152 S.W.2d 1088; Walker v. Quanah A. P. Ry. Co., Tex.Com.App., 58 S.W.2d 4; Gulf, C. S. F. Ry. Co. v. Harvey, Tex.Com.App., 276 S.W. 895; Sidran v. Western Textile Products Co., Tex.Civ.App., 258 S.W.2d 830 (writ granted); Munoz v. Bollack Stores, Tex.Civ.App., 238 S.W.2d 275; Biers v. Ft. Worth Lloyds, Tex.Civ.App., 219 S.W.2d 493, 496; Heflin v. Ft. Worth D.C. Ry. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 207 S.W.2d 114; Dwyer v. Southern Pac. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 141 S.W.2d 961; Harkins v. Mosley, Tex.Civ.App., 134 S.W.2d 706; Figula v. Ft. Worth D.C. Ry. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 131 S.W.2d 998; Allcorn v. Ft. Worth R. C. Ry. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 122 S.W.2d 341; Stehling v. Johnston, Tex.Civ.App., 32 S.W.2d 696; Chandler v. Wiemers, Tex.Civ.App., 4 S.W.2d 569; Moore v. Orgain, Tex.Civ.App., 291 S.W. 583.