Dearing v. Nutter

Texas Supreme Court

Dearing v. Nutter

402 S.W.2d 889, 9 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 384, 1966 Tex. LEXIS 366

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedMay 4, 1966

DocketNo. A-11351

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 402 S.W.2d 889 (Dearing v. Nutter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dearing v. Nutter, 402 S.W.2d 889, 9 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 384, 1966 Tex. LEXIS 366 (Tex. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The application for writ of error in this case is refused, no reversible error. The Court of Civil Appeals has held inadmissible petitioner’s testimony as to the route he had taken many times before from his home to his wife’s place of employment and a map showing the layout of the route. 400 S.W.2d 346. In Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. R. Co. v. McFerrin, 156 Tex. 69, 291 S.W.2d 931 (1956), we held that evidence of a person’s habits could not be admitted to prove care or negligence when there was an eye witness to an accident. This was not a holding that evidence of a person’s habits was inadmissible where there was an eye witness to an accident and the evidence was offered for purposes other than to prove care or negligence. The testimony of Dear-ing with regard to the route he habitually traveled in taking his wife to work is admissible as tending to prove that Dearing was following his habitual route of travel on the occasion in question.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The application for writ of error in this case is refused, no reversible error. The Court of Civil Appeals has held inadmissible petitioner’s testimony as to the route he had taken many times before from his home to his wife’s place of employment and a map showing the layout of the route. 400 S.W.2d 346. In Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. R. Co. v. McFerrin, 156 Tex. 69, 291 S.W.2d 931 (1956), we held that evidence of a person’s habits could not be admitted to prove care or negligence when there was an eye witness to an accident. This was not a holding that evidence of a person’s habits was inadmissible where there was an eye witness to an accident and the evidence was offered for purposes other than to prove care or negligence. The testimony of Dear-ing with regard to the route he habitually traveled in taking his wife to work is admissible as tending to prove that Dearing was following his habitual route of travel on the occasion in question.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

402 S.W.2d 889, 9 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 384, 1966 Tex. LEXIS 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dearing-v-nutter-tex-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack