Datasets:

Equall

/

perplexity_evaluation

like 3

Follow

Equall 47

It is ORDERED that appellees Greg Abbott, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas; Collin County, Texas, and the City of Frisco, Texas recover their costs of this appeal from appellant Galovelho LLC.

Party Submissions

Under the family-code there is apresumption that property possessed by either spouse at the dissolUtion of the marriage is presumed to be community property. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §3.003(a). Only community property is subject to the trial court’s just and right division. Barnard v. Barnard, 133 S.W.3d 782, 789 (Tex. App—Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied).

Party Submissions

Yellowfin’s reliance on the rule that the limitations period “runs against each installment from the time it becomes due,” Gabriel v. Alhabbal, 618 S.W.2d 894, 897 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1981, writ denied), is beside the point, Resp. Br. 18-19. That rule applies before a loan is accelerated, not when, as here, the full balance has already come due — that is, has been accelerated — upon foreclosure. Accelerating the note has the same effect as the note “matur[ing] under its own terms.” See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Express Limousines, Inc., No. 03-21-00266-CV, 2022 WL 3048235, at *3 (Tex. App. — Austin Aug. 3, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.). And that is when the limitations period commences. Id.

Party Submissions

App. — El Paso 1990, writ denied)). So it makes little difference whether Respondents “disclaimed any appellate issue about res judicata,” whether the court of appeals insisted “it was not ruling on res judicata,” or whether the “opinion cites no case about res judicata.” (Resp. 16) The opinion’s underpinning logic is more akin to collateral estoppel anyway, b ecause the court of appeals treated “the issue” of Westwood’s abandonment of the premises as having been “decided” in the forcible entry and detainer proceeding, and therefore preventing “ relitigation ” of the issue in district court. Getty Oil Co. v. Insurance Co. of N. Am ., 845 S.W.2d 794, 802 (Tex. 1992). In any event, the fact that the court held that the forcible entry and detainer proceeding ’ s result “precluded [Westwood] from recovering damages,” and prevented Westwood from being able to satisfy “at least one element” of its “constructive eviction and breach of contract claims, ” showed the court’s belief that the result in an eviction proceeding will control the different proceedings in district court. (Op. 2, 6) And that violates Texas statutes defining the boundaries between the jurisdiction of Texas district courts and lower courts in eviction cases regardless of the particular reason for that preclusion. Respondents do nothing to prove otherwise except to insist those boundaries pertain only to “ res judicata ” when they plainly do not.

Party Submissions

To amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to strike provisions relating to the maximum civil penalties for violations of product safety standards.

Legislation

As noted there, Oncor brought its suit under, inter alia, section 25.25(g), which independently authorizes a property owner to “file suit to compel the board to order a change in the appraisal roll as required by this section. .. .” CR.32-33. Section 25.25(g) does not prohibit a property owner from naming an appraisal review board as a defendant. This provision—the one most specific to appeals of motions under section 25.25—arguably waives immunity from suit because it establishes administrative remedies a property owner may pursue against an appraisal review board. For that reason and to avoid any defensive argument that Oncor somehow failed to exhaust its administrative remedies by failing to name the Board as a defendant, Oncor named both the Board and the District as defendants.

Party Submissions

And the timing amplifies the inequity. “[E]quity aids the diligent and not those who slumber on their rights.” Rivercenter Assocs. v. Rivera, 858 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex. 1993) (cleaned up). This Court’s elections precedent could not be clearer: • “Never is adherence to that general rule more important than when candidates seek, at a late hour, to constrain the choices available to voters in an election.” Self, 652 S.W.3d at 830. • “[I]nvoking judicial authority in the election context requires unusual dispatch—the sort of speed not reasonably demanded of parties and lawyers when interests less compelling than our society’s need for smooth and uninterrupted elections are at stake.” Khanoyan, 637 S.W.3d at 764. • The party invoking judicial power must show that “circumstances beyond [his] control create [any] time-sensitive controversies requiring speedy judicial resolution.” Self, 652 S.W.3d at 830.

Party Submissions

TEX. TAX CODE § 42.01(a)(1) contains a list of the things an owner is entitled to appeal to the trial court. One of those things is an appeal of an order of an appraisal review board determining a motion filed under section 25.25. TEX. TAX CODE § 42.01(a)(1)(B). However, “[a] petition for review may not be brought against the appraisal review board.” TEX. TAX CODE § 42.21(b).

Party Submissions

In its mandamus petition, Sonic argues that continued abatement of its contract claims is an abuse of discretion because there is no authority to support abatement, and the orders are a violation of the Open Courts provision of the Texas Constitution. See TEX. CONST. Art. I, § 13. We begin with the appeal.

Party Submissions

HN7 [ ] Statute of Limitations, Time Limitations Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 409.003 provides that a claim may be initiated by an employee or a person acting on the employee's behalf not later than one year after the date on which the injury occurred.

Party Submissions

RLB.BOM.56. RLB also argues that the Subcontract affords it three “permissible” “potential venue options.” Id. 59-60. RLB is wrong.

Party Submissions

Agreement shall apply to any and all work performed by or for Subcontractor, including, but not limited to, Change Order work, extra work and work performed on Subcontractor’s behalf by McCarthy or others.

Party Submissions

To ensure that a declaration for a major disaster or emergency is made on a timely basis, rural areas receive assistance, and for other purposes.

Legislation

Article 1121 NAFTA nor its waiver since it has not challenged this measure as being in breach of NAFTA nor has it submitted any claim in that respect in the present arbitration.

Legal Decisions

Respondents completely ignore this passage from the court’s order on rehearing, instead emphasizing two carefully curated snippets from the main opinion — one suggesting that Westwood did not “identify any act” by Respondents as the cause “for its decision to abandon the appeal” and vaca te the premises, and another noting that Westwood vacated “without qualification. ” (Resp. 22 quoting Op. 5, 6) But the full context of these passages makes clear that the court of appeals was not speaking about any absence of evidence that Respondents had constructively evicted Westwood, or that Westwood had failed to complain of that constructive eviction. And no such contention could have been maintained because the record is replete with evidence of Respondents’ acts of interference with Westwood’s righ t of possession that forced it to leave —and Westwood’s repeated complaints about that interference. The court was instead speaking about the contents of the agreed judgment and Westwood’s supposed failure to indicate its continued “protest” against Respond ents’ harassment, which the court deemed fatal to Westwood’s claims in the district court, regardless of Westwood’s evidence of constructive eviction. ( See Pet. Br. 22) Accordingly, the passage on which Respondents rely in trying to prove the court of appeals ’ opinion rested on the evidence actually proves the opposite — that it rested entirely on the purported legal effect of the agreed judgment.

Party Submissions

To answer "Yes" to the following question, your answer must be unanimous. You may answer "No" to the following question only upon a vote of ten or more jurors. Otherwise, you must not answer the following question.

Party Submissions

To prevent anticompetitive conduct through the use of pricing algorithms by prohibiting the use of pricing algorithms that can facilitate collusion through the use of nonpublic competitor data, creating an antitrust law enforcement audit tool, increasing transparency, and enforcing violations through the Sherman Act and Federal Trade Commission Act, and for other purposes.

Legislation

The legal concepts that Petitioner is attempting to discard are longstanding and repeatedly confirmed by courts. Where there is a debt secured by a note, which is in turn, secured by a lien, the note and the lien constitute separate obligations. Aguero v. Ramirez, 70 S.W.3d 372, 374 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002, pet. denied). More than a hundred years ago, it was recognized that a lender could be barred from enforcing a lien but still recover the money due on a note, holding that when the Legislature enacted a statute governing liens, “no attempt was made to disturb, or modify, the provisions of article 5705, which prescribes the manner of renewing personal obligations.” Adams v. Harris, 190 S.W. 245, 246 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1916, no writ). More recently, courts have stated that “Texas law differentiates between enforcement of a promissory note and foreclosure.” Montoya v. AmCAP Mortgage, Ltd., No. 01-20-00799-CV (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 11, 2022, pet. denied)(mem. op.)(quoting Bierwirth v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., No. 03-11-00644-CV, 2012 WL 3793190, at *4 (Tex.App.-Austin Aug. 30, 2012, pet. denied (mem. op.).

Party Submissions

Indeed, the detailed fee structure outlined in Rafiei's agreement provides concrete evidence of likely and specific costs. The exactitude with which Rafiei's agreement outlines potential costs, from filing fees to arbitrator compensation, means that Rafiei's financial commitment is not based on speculation or assumption. Rather, it's grounded in concrete, established terms. This stands in sharp contrast to Shattenkirk, where the vague nature of potential expenses meant costs remained speculative.

Party Submissions

Disability Benefits. Appeal of a denied Disability Benefits claim must be filed in writing with the Appeals Committee no later than one hundred eighty (180) days after receipt of the written notification of such claim denial. The review shall be conducted by the Appeals Committee (exclusive of the person who made the initial adverse decision or such person’s subordinate). In reviewing the appeal, the Appeals Committee shall: (i) not afford deference to the initial denial of the claim, (ii) consult a medical professional who has appropriate training and experience in the field of medicine relating to the Claimant’s Disability and who was neither consulted as part of the initial denial nor is the subordinate of such individual, and (iii) identify the medical or vocational experts whose advice was obtained with respect to the initial benefit denial, without regard to whether the advice was relied upon in making the decision. The Appeals Committee shall make its decision regarding the merits of the denied claim within 45 days following receipt of the appeal (or within ninety (90) days after such receipt, in a case where there are special circumstances requiring extension of time for reviewing the appealed claim). If an extension of time for reviewing the appeal is required because of special circumstances, written notice of the extension shall be furnished to the Claimant prior to the commencement of the extension. The notice will indicate the special circumstances requiring the extension of time and the date by which the Appeals Committee expects to render the determination on review. Following its review of any additional information submitted by the Claimant, the Appeals Committee shall render a decision on its review of the denied claim.

Contract

The City contends that the Delapenas ’ pleadings and the jurisdictional record do not support a waiver of immunity. The Delapenas respond that they have alleged two valid claims under the TTCA, and they stress that neither claim is a premises defect claim. They first allege that “the City negligently used real property by operating Buttercup [P]ool in violation of its own adopted safety policies.” They describe this claim as both a failure to implement policy and a negligent activity.

Party Submissions

The oxytocin infusion protocol also allowed the nurses to administer terbutaline when a fetal heart rate is not responding to the discontinuation of Pitocin. App. 7, CR 669. Dr. Tappan believed the nurses should have done so when Dr. Castillo made the decision to perform a C-section at 15:52. App. 7, CR 669.

Party Submissions

Claimants agree to conduct a reasonable search for and produce documents responsive to this request that are in the Claimants’ possession and/or control.

Legal Decisions

PCC : The requested documents are accessible to Obnova/Claimants who can obtain the documents from the Cadastre, in accordance with the applicable regulations.26 In other words, the requested documents are "in the public domain and equally and effectively available to both parties".27 Respondent, just like Claimants, must address the Cadastre in order to obtain documents in question.28 Therefore, it is equally burdensome for Respondent as it is for Claimants to obtain these documents, so it is not justified encumbering Respondent with a task that can be performed by Claimants themselves. As Claimants have already obtained certain documentation from the Cadastre (see for example, exhibits C-162 to C-166 and C-329), there is no compelling reason why they cannot also request the documents whose production they now seek. R, M : Claimants have not established the purported relevance and materiality of the requested documents. Claimants seek the requested documents in order to assess the source material for the sketches contained in Exhibit R-043. They do not, however, explain why this information is relevant and material for their case.

Legal Decisions

Much of the court of appeals’ analysis is devoted to Petitioners’ request to replead, which the court denied, relying on the “open” and “obvious” exception to a landowner’s duty. Id. at *6. First, the court suggested that 7 But see Rattray v. City of Brownsville, 662 S.W.3d 860, 872 (Tex. Mar. 10, 2023) (reversing and rejecting a similar non-use argument relied on by the same court of appeals).

Party Submissions

What was the fair market value. ifany, 0f Trinity‘s property immediately after the City‘s non—approval ofone 0r more Ofthe SUPS‘?

Party Submissions

Finally, McCarthy makes “comity” and “judicial economy” arguments it did not present in the trial court or court of appeals, claiming that dismissal of the Texas case “comports with principles of comity and judicial economy.” McCarthy’s Brief at 18. Comity is “not a constitutional obligation” nor a matter of right, but rather is a “principle of mutual convenience whereby one state or jurisdiction will give effect to the laws and judicial decisions of another [state].” Griffith v. Griffith, 341 S.W.3d 43, 54 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.). The general rule is that when an identical lawsuit is first filed in another state—in cases involving an enforceable forum-selection clause—Texas courts will stay the later-filed proceeding pending adjudication of the first suit. In re AutoNation, Inc., 228 S.W.3d 663, 670 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding). McCarthy ignores that neither RLB nor Travelers is a party to the Oklahoma lawsuit: only MVP and McCarthy are. These lawsuits are hardly “identical.” See, e.g., Crown Leasing Corp. v. Sims, 92 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, no pet.).

Party Submissions

Even if the lower court did improperly extend Thompson, there is no harmful error. Applying the standard previously set out by this Court, the expert reports were insufficient. There simply was no explained causal connection as to the BSA nurses. See supra Part B.

Party Submissions

To allow the Farm Credit Administration the option to examine low-risk Farm Credit System institutions under a 24-month cycle.

Legislation

Backes or Guarantor Respondent and Cross-Petitioner Leon J. Backes, Guarantor pursuant to the Bridge Loan Repayment Guaranty and CEO and founder of Provident Realty Advisors.

Party Submissions

Rather, respondents continue to assert that the UDJA no longer constitutes a waiver of governmental immunity from a suit seeking a declaration of rights under a contract or statute, citing Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d 618, 622 (Tex. 2011) and its progeny. But they do not address the opinions Oncor cited to the contrary. See Montrose Mgmt. Dist. v. 1620 Hawthorne, Ltd., 435 S.W.3d 393, 404 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) (“[I]f a party joins such a governmental entity and seeks a declaration construing an ordinance or statute, immunity from suit is waived.”); Pharmserv Inc. v. Texas Health & Human Servs. Comm’n, No. 03-13-00526-CV, 2015 WL 1612006, at *8 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 9, 2015, no pet.) (“[T]he UDJA does waive a governmental entity’s immunity for a declaration construing a statute ....”).

Party Submissions

Mexico, and other awards on indirect expropriation,756 support a submission that expropriation can result from “ the vitiation of an investor’s legitimate expectations” and cite the Tecmed v. Mexico award as finding that the “repudiation of the investor’s legitimate expectation of an economic return on its investment ” could constitute an indirect expropriation.757 Norway disputes that these awards sustain those propositions but even if they did, the Tribunal recalls that it has already rejected the Claimants’ argument that they had a legitimate expectation of being able to take snow crab in the Norwegian sector of the Loop Hole (see paragraphs 502 to 528, above). Similarly, the Tribunal has rejected the Claimants’ contentions that Norway acted arbitrarily, without sound basis under UNCLOS or for improper purposes in determining that snow crab is a sedentary species and then banning EU vessels from taking snow crab on the Norwegian outer continental shelf (see paragraphs 532 to 544, above).

Legal Decisions

H-6. Seventy-eight percent (78%), whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, bested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to H A OKS pension plan with Bank of America existing by reason of H A OKS past, present or future employment as of December 9, 2019. This award will be more particularly defined in a Qualifi Domestic Relations Order signed by the Court on or after the date the Final Decree of Divorce is signed.

Party Submissions

Elections should be decided at the ballot box—not by a candidate’s dilatory litigation. Justice Walker’s (“Relator”) mandamus petition is part of an unfortunately continuing trend where individuals seeking public office attempt to use Election Code technicalities at the last minute to remove their electoral opponents from the ballot. “The public interest,” however, “is best served when public offices are decided by fair and vigorous elections, not technicalities leading to default.” In re Francis, 186 S.W.3d 534, 542 (Tex. 2006). There is no basis in equity or this Court’s precedent to grant Relator’s requested relief of removing Justice Devine from the ballot. To the contrary, such relief would violate the U.S. and Texas Constitutions and create damaging precedent encouraging delay, gamesmanship, and sandbagging.

Party Submissions

HN14 [ ] We previously determined that a negligence case against a nonsubscribing employer is an action for workers' compensation benefits under the TWCA. Keng I, 976 S.W.2d at 891. That decision has not been overruled. Therefore, under the facts of this case, designation of a responsible third party under Section 33.004 is barred under the express terms of the statute. Based on this reasoning, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking the designation of responsible third parties. Consequently, ETMC Athens fails to establish its entitlement to mandamus relief.

Party Submissions

Respondents’ position would defeat the Legislature’s textually-evident policy goal by eschewing reasonableness whenever a manufacturer/distributor demands a standard outside a dealer agreement (as would usually be the case) or with consequences short of dealer termination (as would often be the case). Enforcing the plain meaning of “require” is essential to effectuate § 2301.467(a)(1)’s sound policy.

Party Submissions

For these reasons, amici respectfully urge the Court to grant the petition and reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Party Submissions

Assuming, for the sake of argument only, that Bay met the requirements of Tex. Lab Code § 406.123 with a written agreement and the proper and timely filing of the agreement as outlined above, there is still no authority that extends immunity *21 for a co-employee tort-feasor who is outside of a potential ROCIP's policy's scope of coverage. If the court reaches this issue, it would be a case of first impression.

Party Submissions

The Contract rates are tied to externalities Liberty bears resulting from its customer’s excessive flows. Particularly, Liberty’s WWTP has a finite capacity, and continually treating amounts in excess of the TAV can subject it to additional costs and TCEQ enforcement. (CR 39.) The Additional Service Charge exists to cover those costs, and without them Liberty would be operating at a loss. (CR 4, 42.) The Additional Service Charge is in fact a high-volume rate tied to sewage quantities over and above the Contract’s TAV and importantly, is charged after treatment of that sewage. (CR 45.) Volume-based rates like t he Contract’s Additional Service Charge are frequently used in the industry, not as penalties, but as agreed-upon payments for additional services rendered when a wholesale provider accepts flows from customer cities. See Am. Pub. Works Ass’n et al., Core Attributes of Effectively Managed Wastewater Collection Sys., 31 (2010), https://www2.apwa.net/documents/resourcecenter/final%20core%20attri butes%20july%202010.pdf (last visited Oct. 19, 2023). To characterize the Additional Service Charge as a penalty ignores the plain (and agreed upon) language of the Contract: higher flows drive higher treatment costs. Ames’s post hoc attempts to walk away from its contractual payment duties cannot change that fundamental reality, nor can it misconstrue agreed-upon rates as penalties simply because Ames has not paid such rates in full.

Party Submissions

Freestone County. It does not indicate that R.L.S. was arrested for warrants from the City of Mexia. This discrepancy is immaterial to the disposition of this appeal.

Party Submissions

The conditions set by the referenced competent institutions for the issuance of the 2013 DRP reflect these institutions’ position towards the adoption of the 2013 DRP and the protection of public interest that eac h of these authorities is tasked to safeguard. The requested documents are relevant and material to assess the factors considered by the individual authorities that were required, under Serbian law, to provide the conditions for adoption of the 2013 DRP — i ncluding whether they considered Obnova’s rights to its premises at Dunavska 17-19 and Dunavska 23 and if so, their contemporaneous understanding of the extent of these rights.

Legal Decisions

Loya v. Loya. In Loya, the wife filed a post-divorce proceeding to divide a bonus husband received approximately 9 months after the parties’ divorce. Loya v.

Party Submissions

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document has been served on the following counsel of record via e-service in accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, on October 25, 2023.

Party Submissions

Relying on an intermediate appellate opinion from Ohio, the court of appeals suggested that the City, and conceivably, any other owner and operator of a public pool had no duty to protect swimmers because the dangers of swimming are open and obvious. Delapena, 2022 WL 16993493, at *4 (citing Mullens, 719 N.E.2d at 604).8 But the Mullens opinion dealt with a drowning of an invitee to a private party with a pool on a residential property. Mullens, 719 N.E.2d at 601. This does not support the sweeping holding by the court of appeals that no owner of a pool, even one who operates a Class A or Class B public pool, owes a duty to protect swimmers.

Party Submissions

In a decree of divorce or annulment, the court shall determine the rights of both spouses in a pension, retirement plan, annuity, individual retirement account, employee stock option plan, stock option, or other form of savings, bonus, profit-sharing, or other employer plan or financial plan of an employee or a participant, regardless of whether the person is self-employed, in the nature of compensation or savings.

Party Submissions

In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction determines that any portion of this Agreement or the Note is in violation of any statute or public policy, then only the portions of this Agreement or the Note that violate such statute or public policy are stricken. All portions of this Agreement and the Note that do not violate any statute or public policy continue in full force and effect. Any court order striking any portion of this Agreement or the Note modifies the stricken terms as narrowly as possible to give as much effect as possible to the intentions of the parties pursuant to this Agreement or the Note, as the case may be.

Contract

As explained above, Serbia disputes that Obnova built the buildings presently existing at its premises. The requested documents are relevant and material to demonstrate that Obnova’s buildings at its premises at Dunavska 17-19 and 23 were built after Obnova’s establishment in 1948.

Legal Decisions

To improve the process for awarding grants under certain programs of the Department of Transportation to certain counties in which the majority of land is owned or managed by the Federal Government and to other units of local government and Tribal governments in those counties, and for other purposes.

Legislation

So McCarthy had to retain—and MVP had to pay for—another subcontractor to assist RLB in completing that work. R.196.

Party Submissions

Andrea Laporta, the compensation executive for the consumer and small business banking organization, testied during the hearing. She conrmed that Husband would receive a$140,000 bonus from Bank of America on February 15, 2020 “as long as he remains an active employee. However, if Husband was no longer an employee as of the date of the distribution, regardless of resignation or ring, then he was not entitled to receive it. She conrmed that the board determined the bonus amount, if any, in mid to late November 2019 based on work Husband performed during the 2019 scal year; however, the board did not approve it until January 2020.

Party Submissions

Relatedly, this Court should also address whether Texas recognizes a common law duty for pool owners and operators of public bathing establishments to exercise reasonable care in the operation and maintenance of pools. This Court does not appear to have directly addressed this issue.

Party Submissions

Along the same vein, the Walkers repeatedly cite Aguilera v. Costilla, No. 13-21-00135-CV, 2023 WL 2711129 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Mar. 30, 2023, pet. filed) in an attempt to transform the Amarillo Court’s opinion into something it is not. Aguilera cited that opinion – in its discussion of standard of care – for the unremarkable proposition that an expert report untethered to facts is conclusory. Id. at *8. The Corpus Christi Court cited this Court’s opinion in Palacios in the same string cite for the same general rule. Id. The Corpus Christi Court did not delve into analysis, discuss the Amarillo Court’s causation analysis, apply (or even cite) Thompson or its reasoning, or expand any of this Court’s prior precedent. The citation to the Amarillo Court’s opinion is hardly noteworthy.

Party Submissions

This document is current through the 2023 Regular Session; the 1st C.S.; the 2nd C.S.; the 3rd C.S. and the 4th C.S. of the 88th Legislature; and the November 7, 2023 election results.

Party Submissions

A candidate for Justice, Supreme Court who chooses to pay the filing fee must also accompany his or her application with a petition containing a minimum of 50 signatures from each court of appeals district. TEX. ELEC. CODE § 172.021(g). This petition must comply with the requirements for petitions generally under the 5 Election Code. Id. (requiring judicial petitions to comply with the same requirements prescribed under Subsection (b), Section 172.021); TEX. ELEC. CODE § 172.021(b) (requiring petitions to satisfy the requirements prescribed by Section 141.062); TEX. ELEC. CODE § 141.062 (requiring petitions to contain valid signatures in the number required and comply with any other applicable requirements for validity prescribed in the Election Code). Section 141.066, Election Code prohibits persons from signing the petition of more than one candidate for the same office in the same election. TEX. ELEC. CODE § 141.066(a). Furthermore, the same section declares that, “A signature on a candidate's petition is invalid if the signer signed the petition subsequent to signing a petition of another candidate for the same office in the same election.” TEX. ELEC. CODE § 141.066(c).

Party Submissions

Oncor’s key jurisdictional argument is that because the 1.111(e) agreement entered into by Sharyland is voidable by reason of mutual mistake of fact, it cannot operate as a bar to its suit. Petitioner asserts that the undisputed evidence in the record affirmatively establishes the opposite. In fact, it establishes the opposite.

Party Submissions

While not a gist case, Huckabee v. Time Warner Ent’mt Co. is also instructive. Huckabee concerned a TV documentary about child custody proceedings that was critical of the family court system. 19 S.W.3d 413, 417 (Tex. 2000). The judge in two of the cases featured in the documentary sued for defamation, arguing—much as Barina does here—that the film was one-sided and “omitted important facts that would have led viewers to conclude that his [actions in the cases were] justified.” Id. at 419. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s claims, holding that one of the challenged statements was “a criticism of the family courts in general and not of Judge Huckabee in particular and, as a result, was not defamatory” of him. Id. at 429; see also Harvest House Publishers v. Local Church, 190 S.W.3d 204 at 213 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (dismissing claim on of-and-concerning grounds where plaintiff tried to hold defendant liable for passages in a book that discussed criminal activity by others).

Party Submissions

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ...................................................... i Nature of the Case: The Delapena Family (Petitioners) sued the City of Cedar Park (City) for the wrongful death of their daughter Catiana Delapena (Catiana), who drowned at Buttercup Pool when the City failed to enforce its mandatory safety policy for use of the pool. CR 34-37. The policy required the City to deny access to Catiana because there were too few staff and lifeguards to adequately monitor 112 children. See id. Petitioners also brought a bystander claim for Catiana’s sister, who observed her death. CR38. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction. SCR6.

Party Submissions

Therefore, in addition to Bestor's attorney's fee claim being based on Service Lloyds' dispute of Bestor's entitlement to workers' compensation benefits, a pervasive administrative and statutory scheme exists for the award and payment of a claimant's attorney's fees in the administrative phase of a workers' compensation proceeding.

Party Submissions

Respondent takes note of Claimants' agreement to conduct a search for and to produce non-privileged documents that are responsive to this request. Respondent requests Claimants to provide a privilege log as explained in Respondent’s general comments above.

Legal Decisions

For the avoidance of any doubt, Claimants also reiterate their general objection to the production of any documents covered by privilege under legal or ethical rules and express their disagreement with Serbia’s interpretation of the Cyprus-Serbia BIT and, by extension, with Serbia’s description of alleged relevance and materiality of the requested documents. Claimants will address Serbia’s arguments in detail in their Reply.

Legal Decisions

Finally, Respondent cites Brady v. Fourteenth Court of Appeals, 795 S.W.2d 712, 715 (Tex. 1990, orig. proceeding) for the proposition that since he puts the constitutionality of Texas’ primary system at issue by claiming it infringes on the Republican Party’s freedom of association, a factual record must be developed, precluding mandamus relief. Rather, Brady is not the King’s-X Respondent makes it out to be. Brady involved an as-applied challenge of statutory construction, which obviously necessitates a factual record to decide. Here, there is no factual dispute and, importantly, the underlying statute is clear—50 signatures are required for each judicial district, and duplicates do not count. This Court, is not faced with competing statutory constructions. This Court’s holding in Brady was centered on disputed areas of fact. Here, neither Respondent nor Devine dispute any facts related to Devine’s petition or Respondent’s duty to reject it. Therefore, this Court need not accept Respondent’s and Devine’s invitation to excise Texas’ primary and ballot 12 application regulations as unconstitutional infringements on freedom of association, especially where the great weight of constitutional jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court and this Court is against them.

Party Submissions

Expressing support for the designation of January 30, 2024, as CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy) and RHI (repeated head impacts) Awareness Day.

Legislation

In [**7] 2001, after Sonic filed its reimbursement claim with the TWCC, Sonic's contract claims were abated pending a determination of the compensability of Cochran's injury. The abatement order was temporarily lifted in January 2003, and the cases were subsequently consolidated. Both parties then moved for summary judgment on the election of remedies issue in the consolidated cases. The trial court granted Sonic's motion, and in its final order, 6 awarded Sonic $ 78,023.89 under section 409.009, reversed the appeals panel's decision on whether Cochran had made an election of remedies and on Sonic's entitlement to reimbursement, and denied TMI's summary judgment motion. TMI appeals the trial court's judgment.

Party Submissions

For the avoidance of any doubt, Claimants reiterate their general objection to production of any documents covered by privilege under the legal or ethical rules.

Legal Decisions

Q. And that is consistent with what you’ve described on Exhibit 12 a couple of years earlier, about four years earlier, four years before the recordation, as roadbed, correct”?

Party Submissions

Next, Bay attempted to secure standing before the Division as a “sub-claimant.” To do so, Bay alleges that it paid some medical bills for Mr. Mann's injuries. 24 While there is no competent evidence that the bills were paid as Bay claims, Bay has also failed to establish any standing to raise an original proceeding before the Division as an employer of a denied claim. The law only grants direct standing to an employer if a carrier to an employer's workers' compensation carrier, accepts a claim and the employer disputes it. An employer without its own workers' *7 compensation policy has no standing at all unless it attempts to obtain reimbursement as a “sub-claimant” on an already compensable claim. Those facts are not present in this case.

Party Submissions

Fourth, the jury in the underlying trial found that HSMiller — not just Defterios — engaged in fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Also, HSMiller’s own head-in-the-sand approach to Defterios’s business dealings and its decision to anoint him as a vice president, were negligent acts that contributed to the judgment against it at the underlying trial. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 33.003(a), 33.011(1).

Party Submissions

Any and all documents representing “ Elaborate on the relocation of the trolleybus turning point from Rajiceva street ” referred in Section 9.3 of Serbia’s exhibit R-101.

Legal Decisions

Binding Decisions or Actions. The decision or action of the Committee in respect of any question arising out of or in connection with the administration, interpretation and application of the Plan and the rules and regulations thereunder shall be final and conclusive and binding upon all persons having any interest in the Plan.

Contract

Specified Employee. Specified Employee means an Employee who, as of the date of his Separation from Service, is a “key employee” of the Company or any Affiliate, any stock of which is actively traded on an established securities market or otherwise.

Contract

For example, in RDG Ltd. P’ship v. Gexa Corp., RDG contended that Gexa had “failed to present evidence of fraud, duress, or the taking of undue advantage that would render its retention of the benefit unconscionable.” No. 14-04-00679-CV, 2005 WL 949171, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 26, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.). The Fourteenth Court of Appeals disagreed. It held that retaining the benefit of a mistake constituted the taking of an undue advantage, and that RDG had passively received the benefit of electricity provided by Gexa to an entire apartment building that it would be unconscionable for RDG to retain at Gexa’s expense. Id. In addressing RDG’s argument, which is nearly identical to that made by the Diocese here, the Fourteenth Court held that Heldenfels was not inconsistent with the “passive receipt” doctrine: We fail to see any contradiction between the two doctrines, but, instead, find they are fully compatible, and any determination on unjust enrichment will necessarily depend upon the evidence presented in the case. In any event, several courts of appeals have relied on the “passively received” language even after the Texas Supreme Court decided Heldenfels Brothers. Moreover, the supreme court in Heldenfels Brothers did not address the “passively retained” language or otherwise disapprove or overrule any case law applying that language in unjust enrichment analysis. Therefore, we conclude the “passively retained” language is still viable.

Party Submissions

The Respondent understands that this Request has been withdrawn. The Respondent reserves the right to object to any further request for these documents in due course.

Legal Decisions

Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code sections 33.003 and 33.004, the responsibility of Defterios should have been submitted to the jury.

Party Submissions

Notwithstanding any Specified Date election of a Participant, if a Participant incurs a Separation from Service, dies or becomes Disabled, in each case before distributions with respect to a Specified Date Account have commenced, such amounts shall be paid in accordance with the time and form of payment applicable to the Participant’s Separation from Service Benefit, Death Benefit or Disability Benefit (as applicable). With respect to Specified Date Account, Balances that have commenced to be paid in installment payments prior to the date of the Separation form Service, death or Disability, such Specified Date accounts shall continue to be paid in accordance with the form of payment election applicable to the Specified Date Account.

Contract

Further, with respect to the Texas Property Code bond claim, MVP misrepresents the language of Section 53.175(b) in claiming that venue for a bond claim is permissive rather than mandatory in Harris County. Compare MVP’s Brief at 68, with TEX. PROP. CODE § 53.175(b). Section 53.175(b) makes it permissive to have multiple lawsuits by different obligees under one bond—but it is still mandatory to bring any suit in a court in the county where the real property is located (here Harris County, Texas). Moreover, neither McCarthy nor MVP disputes that the Oklahoma court would not have jurisdiction over Travelers. In short, RLB’s bond claim would potentially be lost if the entire underlying Texas case were dismissed.

Party Submissions

Claimant does not make a similar request concerning the contracts with the other companies for which it requests documents and does not explain why this specific request concerning the contract with Refidomsa would be relevant to its discrimination claim.

Legal Decisions

HN2 [ ] Standards of Review, Abuse of Discretion A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner or, stated differently, when it acts without reference to guiding rules and principles. When a trial court fails to analyze or apply the law correctly, it has clearly abused its discretion. The trial court has no discretion in determining the law or applying the law to the facts. However, when considering a writ of mandamus, an appellate court focuses on the result reached by the trial court rather than its reasons. If the trial court expresses an incorrect legal reason for its ruling, an appellate court will nevertheless uphold the order on any other grounds supported by the record.

Party Submissions

January 20, 2017 to the present, National Archives (to the extent that documents in the National Archives originated from USTR or the State Document Request No.

Legal Decisions

Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 406.075(a) provides that an employee who elects to pursue his remedy under the workers' compensation laws of another jurisdiction, and who recovers benefits under those laws, may not recover under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA). Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 406.075(a) (2006). Under Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 409.009 (2006), a person may file a claim with the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission as a subclaimant if that person has: (1) provided compensation, including health care provided by a health care insurer, directly or indirectly, to or for an employee or legal beneficiary; and (2) sought and been refused reimbursement from the insurance carrier. Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 409.009 .

Party Submissions

Request No. 10: The Request is denied. The Claimant is requesting access to documents mostly prepared by the Claimant himself and relating in whole or in part to the encounter organized by the Claimant between Qatar representative Dr Ali bin Smikh Al Marri and Pope Francis on January 31, 2019. Such documents are not material to assess the Claimant’s investment in Qatar for the purpose of preparing his forthcoming Memorial, nor are they relevant as an input for a quantum expert evaluating such investment before any submissions have been exchanged on the merits of the instant case, as this is argued in the Claimant’s rubric on the “Relevance and Materiality according to the Requesting Party”.

Legal Decisions

Petitioners next assert that the Court's opinion Casteel opinion has also been overruled but fails to clearly articulate how the opinion conflicts with Casteel. The Opinion is wholly consistent with Casteel because the jury considered a legal theory that failed as a matter of law and the Court could not determine if the unsupported 5 theory was the basis for the jury's verdict. Casteel requires a finding of harmful error and reversal. III. The Opinion did not "misapply" Casteel and its progeny.

Party Submissions

On August 28, 2015, First NBC and TX 1111 entered into the bridge loan and executed the following agreements: (1) a bridge loan agreement outlining the financing terms; (2) a bridge loan promissory note in the maximum principal amount of $20,000,000.00, containing the repayment terms; (3) a bridge loan security and pledge agreement providing First NBC with a security interest in the Contributions as its only collateral; and (4) an assignment of rights to capital contributions in which First NBC was assigned all of TX 1111 ’s right, title, and interest in and to the Contributions. In conjunction with the bridge loan, Backes signed the guaranty for 8 the amounts due and owing under the bridge loan, up to $20,000,000.00.

Party Submissions

In Shattenkirk, the absence of specified arbitration rules and a silent stance on arbitration costs rendered any determination on the prohibitive nature of costs speculative. 669 S.W.3d at 399. This Court emphasized that without clear terms, the nature of potential costs was indeterminate. Id.

Party Submissions

Delegation of Authority. In the administration of this Plan, the Committee may, from time to time, employ agents and delegate to them such administrative duties as it sees fit, and may from time to time consult with legal counsel who shall be legal counsel to the Company and such other professional advisors as the Committee may determine.

Contract

Beoland was the plan commissioner for the 2015 DRP, with responsibilities described at Request No. 25 above. The requested documents are relevant and material for evaluating the factors that Beoland took into account when developing the 2015 DRP, especially the reasons for the decision to rezone for residential purposes a significantly larger land plot, owned by the City of Belgrade, which was already designated and used for traffic infrastructure, located directly across the street from Obnova’s premises at Dunavska 17 -19 and Dunavska 23.

Legal Decisions

Therefore, only these two Coastal States have the exclusive rights to harvest sedentary species on the continental shelf of the Barents Sea.

Legal Decisions

Please sign and return to me the attached Consent for Child to Travel Outside the United States together with the child's original passports within ten days after you receive this notice and consent form, same being ______________________________, 20____.

Party Submissions

In sum, Yellowfin ’s brief does not (because it cannot) dispute that Section 51.003(a)’s plain text covers this suit. That’s all this Court needs to say to reverse.

Party Submissions

Article 1 – Given the depletion of the resources available in the WHOLESALE ELECTRICITY MARKET Stabilization Fund and the differences between the Seasonal Price fixed and the Hourly Spot Market Prices recorded, the methodology described in this resolution is hereby temporarily established in order 4 Resolution 2/2002, dated 14 March 2002, fifth whereas clause (C-186). 5 Resolution 240/2003, dated 14 August 2003, fifth whereas clause (C-8). 6 Resolution 406/2003, dated 8 September 2003, third whereas clause (C-9).

Legal Decisions

The United States objects to Request No. 1.e for the same reasons stated above with respect to Request No. 1.a.

Legal Decisions

R, M : Claimants failed to demonstrate how the requested documents are relevant to its case and material for the outcome of the proceedings. In particular, Claimants failed to explain how the opinion of the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Spatial Planning is relevant to the question of Obnova's alleged property rights or material to the Tribunal's determination of this question. This is a classic "fishing expedition", with Claimants simply casting about for any documents which might contain information they consider helpful in substantiating their (unsubstantiated) case.

Legal Decisions

Trial Court: 201st Judicial District Court, Travis County The Honorable Amy Clark-Meachum Disposition in the Trial Court: The trial court denied the City’s plea to the jurisdiction. CR165, App’x Tab A.

Party Submissions

Municipal de Antigua Guatemala mediante el Acta Municipal 51-2019 del 6 de junio de 2019 que, luego de ser recurrida por TRECSA el 17 de septiembre de 2019 ante el Tribunal de lo Contencioso Administrativo, fue confirmada.

Legal Decisions

Having determined that no abuse of discretion occurred under the facts of this case, we deny ETMC Athens's petition for writ of mandamus. We lift our stay of October 11, 2023.

Party Submissions

The Parties hereby agree that, pursuant to each Specified Agreement, Dow will designate UCC to provide or receive services thereunder, as applicable. In accordance with such designation, UCC shall be entitled to exercise Dow’s rights as service recipient thereunder, and UCC shall satisfy Dow’s obligations as the service provider thereunder.

Contract

But in Del Lago, this Court affirmatively rejected the notion that premises liability claims were limited to physical defects only. See Del Lago, 307 S.W.3d at 776. In Del Lago, this Court found that the plaintiff’s claim was “properly submitted on a premises-liability theory” as the plaintiff “primarily complained of Del Lago’s nonfeasance—its failure to remedy an unreasonably dangerous condition. .. and failure to react promptly.” Id. In Sampson, this Court again reiterated that “a claim for a condition or use of real property is a premises defect claim under the Tort Claims Act. . .” Sampson, 500 S.W.3d at 385 (emphasis added) (citing Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 230 (Tex. 2004)).

Party Submissions

The written notice may be in the form attached to this order as Exhibit A , Notice of Intent for Child to Travel Outside the United States.

Party Submissions

Governing Law. To the extent not preempted by ERISA, the laws of the State of California shall govern the construction and administration of the Plan.

Contract

If the text is ambiguous or if the interpretation under Article 31 of the VCLT leads to a result that is manifestly absurd and unreasonable, then Article 32 of the VCLT clearly allows resort to supplementary means of interpretation.

Legal Decisions

I certify that this Reply Brief complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(2)(C) because it contains 4,463 words, excluding the parts exempted by Rule 9.4(i)(1), in 14-point Palatino Linotype font.

Party Submissions