Cox v. State, 27372
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | WOODLEY |
| Citation | Cox v. State, 274 S.W.2d 844 (Tex. Crim. App. 1955) |
| Decision Date | 02 February 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 27372,27372 |
| Parties | William B. COX, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Frank W. Steinle, Jourdanton, for appellant.
Wesley Dice, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for a violation of Art. 666-17(1), V.A.P.C., a part of the Texas Liquor Control Act, the complaint and information alleging that appellant had a financial interest in a retail package store permit issued to one Lewis Mahulla and was at the same time the holder of a license authorizing the sale of beer at retail, and was engaged in such business of such sale of beer at the same location. The jury assessed as punishment 30 days in jail and a fine of $200.
There are no formal bills of exception and no informal bills are indexed in the Question and Answer statement of facts.
The statement of...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Palmer, 14503
...Berry v. McAdams, 93 Tex. 431, 55 S.W. 1112 (1900); Eldridge v. Poirer, 50 S.W.2d 888, 889 (Tex.Civ.App., 1955, no writ); Cox v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 274 S.W.2d 844; Marek v. Goyen, 346 S.W.2d 926 (Tex.Civ . App., 1961, no Palmer calls our attention to the following language in Article 5454:......
-
Texas & N. Ry. Co. v. Logwood, 7703
... ... Poirer, Tex.Civ.App., 50 S.W.2d 888, writ refused (1932); Henderson v. Couch, Tex.Civ.App., 274 S.W.2d 844, no writ (1955); Texas State" Bank of Alice v. Baker, Tex.Civ.App., 275 S .W.2d 168, no writ (1955); Marek v. Goyen, Tex.Civ.App., 346 S.W.2d 926, no writ (1961) ... \xC2" ... ...