Presley, Ronald

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a common law indemnity claim was ripe when the trial court entered a final judgment in the underlying case
• recognizing that the improper exclusion of evidence is “likely harmless if the evidence was cumulative or if the rest of the evidence was so one-sided that the error likely made no difference in the judgment”
• stating that evidence is less than scintilla when it is so weak as to do no more than create mere surmise or suspicion
• holding excluded evidence likely harmless if cumulative or, if after reviewing entire record, it did not likely cause rendition of improper judgment
• stating that ruling excluding evidence is likely harmless if evidence was cumulative or if evidence was so one-sided that error likely made no difference in judgment
• noting that, to preserve error in court’s exclusion of evidence, party must make offer of proof informing court of substance of excluded evidence (citing TEX. R. EVID. 103)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).