¶1The application for writ of error does not disclose a properly presented error which would justify the reversal of the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals. Accordingly we deny the application with the notation, “Refused, no reversible error.” This action should not be taken as an approval of the Court of Civil Appeals holding (387 S.W.2d 101) that, when raised by the evidence, the issue of whether or not a plaintiff has sustained an injury is a “defendant’s issue” within the meaning of Rule 279, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. There is a marked distinction between the term “defendant’s issue” as generally used in connection with Rule 279 and the term “vital defensive issue,” as used in Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Van Zandt, 159 Tex. 178, 317 S.W.2d 528.
392 S.W.2d 113
Brown v. Poff
Decided April 28, 1965
Texas Supreme Court · decided 1965-04-28
Relies on Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Van Zandt · Brown v. Poff
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1965-04-28
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 1987
8 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →