Wheatheart Feeders v. Pletcher

6 Citing cases

  1. State National Bank of El Paso v. Farah Manufacturing Co.

    678 S.W.2d 661 (Tex. App. 1984)   Cited 78 times
    In Farah, a jury found (after a more-than-two-month trial) that a defendant bank, acting alone or in conspiracy with two other lenders, committed acts of fraud, duress, and interference, proximately resulting in damages to the borrower-plaintiff, and set damages at $ 18, 947, 348.77.

    Killman's assumptions relied either upon facts in evidence or upon inferences reasonably drawn therefrom. This enabled him to properly render an expert opinion as to the profits lost by FMC. Casey v. Barkley, 527 S.W.2d 256 (Tex.Civ.App. — Corpus Christi 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Wheatheart Feeders, Inc. v. Pletcher, 453 S.W.2d 902 (Tex.Civ.App. — Amarillo 1970, writ dism'd). The factual basis upon which he arrived at his expert opinion and the inadequacy or vulnerability of his opinion goes to the weight and credibility of his testimony rather than its admissibility.

  2. Garza v. Berlanga

    598 S.W.2d 377 (Tex. Civ. App. 1980)   Cited 1 times

    The question takes up four pages in the statement of facts and at one point in describing the surgeon's action, Appellant's name was used. A reading of the question shows clearly that the name was inadvertently used instead of the surgeon's name. A general objection to the question was made by the Appellant. It failed to disclose the defect and no error is presented. Walker v. Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Company, 131 Tex. 57, 112 S.W.2d 170 (1938); Wheatheart Feeders, Inc. v. Pletcher, 453 S.W.2d 902 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1970, writ dism'd). Legal and evidentiary sufficiency points are next presented as to the negligence finding faulting the Appellant.

  3. Moore v. Grantham

    580 S.W.2d 142 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979)   Cited 4 times

    The objection must be timely and point out any alleged defect with specificity. Wheatheart Feeders, Inc. v. Pletcher, 453 S.W.2d 902, 904 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1970, dism'd); State of Texas v. Stiefer, 443 S.W.2d 275, 279 (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler 1969, ref'd n. r. e.). Appellant has failed to preserve the error, if any, by the trial court in admitting the opinion testimony of Dr. Hansen because such testimony was not in response to a hypothetical question or allegedly assumed facts not in evidence.

  4. Roth v. Law

    579 S.W.2d 949 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979)   Cited 23 times
    Allowing an economist to "guesstimate" as to reduced earning capacity because damages for loss of future earning capacity is always uncertain, "and they must be proved with the degree of certainty of which they are susceptible."

    While it is true that child abuse was mentioned by Dr. McPherson as a possible prior trauma and cause, a hypothetical question may assume facts which the evidence fairly tends to prove, although they may not have been clearly established. Wheatheart Feeders, Inc. v. Pletcher, 453 S.W.2d 902, 905 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1970, writ dism'd). In this connection, it was Dr. Smith's testimony that child abuse was the cause of retinal detachment in less than one percent of all cases. Thus, in the end, we think the evidence fairly tended to prove, though it did not clearly establish, the absence of a trauma prior to the January 29, 1976 accident.

  5. Ka-Hugh Enterprises, Inc. v. Fort Worth Pipe & Supply Co.

    524 S.W.2d 418 (Tex. Civ. App. 1975)   Cited 9 times
    In Ka-Hugh Enterprises, Inc. v. Fort Worth Pipe Supply Company, 524 S.W.2d 418 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.), a special issue in a form similar to those complained of here was presented for review.

    Rule 182 generally has been construed to apply to parties named in the petition and answer and to certain agents of the named corporate party. Even in cases applying a strict construction to the rule courts have indicated that the named parties to the suit may be impeached. Wheatheart Feeders, Inc. v. Pletcher, 453 S.W.2d 902 (Amarillo Civ.App., 1970, writ dism.). For a discussion of the applicablle law see Vol. 25, Baylor Law Review, p. 283, 'Adverse Examination: A Consolidated Rule For the Hostile Witness in Texas.' The record evidence of a felony conviction involving moral turpitude, that is not too remote in time, is a proper method of impeaching the incredibility of a witness.

  6. Miller Seed Co. v. Pool

    508 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. Civ. App. 1974)   Cited 2 times

    We have carefully examined the area of examination complained of, pertaining, among other matters, to the moisture conditions, or stress on the plants during the pollination period, and although there appeared to be some inconsistency in the testimony previously given regarding these matters, from our review of the record and consideration of all the testimony submitted, we do not perceive that any prejudicial harm resulted from the testimony or from the failure of the court to give the requested instruction to disregard the testimony. See Wheat-heart Feeders, Inc. v. Pletcher, 453 S.W.2d 902 (Tex.Civ.App. — Amarillo 1970, writ dism'd). Also, in the light of other testimony in the record, the weight and strength of which the court is entitled to appraise and consider, we believe that no reversible error was committed in admitting the expert's testimony and in refusing the requested instruction.