Waste Management of Texas, Inc. v. Texas Disposal Systems Landfill, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that exclusion was “harmless because the testimony excluded was in some form effectively obtained from other sources”
• noting that if later legislation differs Cross-Appellants' Reply Brief- Page 13 American Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Hegar, et al.; 03-14-00397-CV significantly from existing law, that later legislation changes rather than clarifies existing law
• recognizing debate and confusion issues raised by amici curiae and legal commentators
• explaining that in section 304.005(b), “[a]nother important factor comes into play and asks whether, on appeal . . . [post]judgment interest does not accrue for the period of any extension” moved for by the claimant and granted
• requiring a public figure to prove actual malice by known falsity or reckless disregard for the truth
• upholding awards of special and exemplary damages while holding evidence of general damages to reputation legally insufficient

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).