Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 304 S.W.2d 290 - Boler v. Coughran

Boler v. Coughran’s Empirical Analysis

1957

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
April 1985
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Scroggs v. Morgan

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The appellant objected to this action upon several grounds, one being, that he had not been afforded an opportunity to argue such question to the jury. The court qualified the bill by certifying that appellant’s counsel did not request further time to argue the case after the change. Notwithstanding the court’s qualification, we think appellant’s objection was sufficient to call the matter of argument of the new issue to the court’s attention. (T)he change in the date inquired about amounted to a withdrawal of the original issue and the submission of a new and different issue of fact. Rule 286, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, provides for giving additional instructions to the jury after their retirement, and provides that for this purpose they shall appear before the judge in open court in a body, and further provides that no instruction shall be given except in conformity with the rules relating to the charge. The rule also provides that additional argument may be allowed in the discretion of the court. We think the fact that this was a controlling issue in the case, and that the charge presented a new and different issue based on different evidence from that which would support the former issue, the trial court’s action was erroneous Under such circumstances, the appellant should have been permitted to present argument to the jury on the new issue. The trial court’s failure to permit such argument resulted in probable harm to appellant and requires a reversal of the judgmen”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.