Ocala Foundry & Machine Works v. Piedmont Phosphate Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the “hypothetical potential for danger” is not sufficient for this element, but that such hypothetical potential was really only appropriate when others are not actually present when the defendant drove in a dangerous manner
• treating claims against John Doe defendants identical to claims against identified defendants in determining whether judgment was final and appealable
• aff’d 58 S.W.3d 132 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) ........................................................................................ 10, 11, 18 Mann v. State, 58 S.W.3d 132, 132 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001
• aff’d 58 S.W.3d 132 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).