State v. Farris

4 Citing cases

  1. Texas Liquor Control Bd. v. Warren

    360 S.W.2d 821 (Tex. Civ. App. 1962)   Cited 1 times

    Texas Liquor Board v. Redd, Tex.Civ.App., 285 S.W.2d 400; Texas Liquor Control Board v. Tschoerner, Tex.Civ.App., 117 S.W.2d 121. In State v. Farris, Tex.Civ.App., 239 S.W.2d 419, the Waco Court of Civil Appeals said that a conflict in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the evidence which upholds the order of the administrative agency. See also Texas Liquor Control Board v. Jones, Tex.Civ.App., 112 S.W.2d 227; Texas Liquor Control Board v. Floyd, Tex.Civ.App., 117 S.W.2d 530; and Texas Liquor Control Board v. Smalley, Tex.Civ.App., 129 S.W.2d 466.

  2. Vrocher v. Texas Liquor Control Board

    350 S.W.2d 349 (Tex. Civ. App. 1961)   Cited 5 times

    Conflicts in evidence must be in favor of the evidence as to the of an administrative agency. Texas Liquor Control Board v. Redd, Tex.Civ.App., 285 S.W.2d 400; State v. Farris, 239 S.W.2d 419; Texas Liquor Control Board v. Jones, Tex.Civ.App., 112 S.W.2d 227; Texas Liquor Control Board v. Floyd, Tex.Civ.App., 117 S.W.2d 530. Appellants' five points on appeal are overruled. Appellee's two counterpoints are sustained.

  3. Patton v. Texas Liquor Control Bd.

    293 S.W.2d 99 (Tex. Civ. App. 1956)   Cited 7 times
    In Patton v. Texas Liquor Control Bd., 293 S.W.2d 99 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1956, writ ref'd n.r.e.), the court considered a situation in which a local option election had been held in only that part of a justice precinct lying outside the corporate limits of a city.

    In hearing the application the county judge acts in an administrative and not a judicial capacity. Jones v. Marsh, 148 Tex. 362, 224 S.W.2d 198; State v. Farris, Tex.Civ.App., 239 S.W.2d 419, no writ history. In the event the application is denied Sec. (e) of Art. 667-6 supra provides for an appeal to the district court for a trial de novo. Sec. 14 of Art. 666 supra.

  4. Texas Liquor Control Board v. Redd

    285 S.W.2d 400 (Tex. Civ. App. 1956)   Cited 7 times

    It is true that the record shows conflicting testimony on the fact issues, but under the substantial evidence rule neither the District Court nor this Court may set aside the Board's order merely because the evidence was conflicting, if there is substantial evidence in reasonable support of the order. State v. Farris, Tex.Civ.App., 239 S.W.2d 419. Since the record contains substantial evidence reasonably supporting the Board's order cancelling appellee's license, we must sustain appellant's points on appeal. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and judgment is here rendered affirming the Board's action and cancelling appellee's beer and wine permit.