State v. Central Expressway Sign Associates

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the “complaining party must only show ‘that the exclusion of evidence probably resulted in the rendition of an improper judgment’” (quoting McCraw v. Maris, 828 S.W.2d 756, 758 (Tex. 1992) (internal citation omitted))
• noting “[t]he income approach is appropriate when the property would be priced according to the rental income it generates”
• requiring review of record to determine if excluded evidence probably resulted in rendition of improper judgment
• stating standard does not require complaining party “to prove that ‘but for’ the exclusion of evidence, a different judgment would necessarily have resulted”
• stating standard does not require complaining party “to prove that ‘but for’ the exclusion of evidence, a different judgment would necessarily have resulted”
• noting “[t]he income approach is appropriate when the property would be priced according to the rental income it generates”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named State v. Central Expressway Sign Associates

4 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• State v. Central Expressway Sign Associates
  Tex. App. Ct., 5th Dist. (Dallas)· 2007-12-06· cited 4×
• State v. Central Expressway Sign Associates
  Texas Supreme Court· 2009-11-20
• State v. Central Expressway Sign Associates
  Texas Supreme Court· 2009-06-26
• State v. Central Expressway Sign Associates
  Texas Supreme Court· 2009-06-26