State v. Jones
Cases that cite this one
32 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- City of Laredo v. Webb County (Tex. App. 2007)
- City of Laredo, Texas v. Webb County, Texas (Tex. App. 2007)
- City of Laredo, Texas v. Webb County, Texas (Tex. App. 2005)
- City of Piney Point Village v. Harris County (Tex. App. 1972)
- Hughes v. County Com'rs' Court of Harris County (Tex. App. 1931)
- City of Laredo, Texas v. Webb County, Texas (Tex. App. 2007)
- City of Laredo, Texas v. Webb County, Texas (Tex. App. 2005)
- City of Breckenridge v. Stephens County (Tex. App. 1930)
- Gabbert v. City of Brownwood (Tex. App. 1943)
- Smith v. Cathey (Tex. App. 1920)
- Bluitt v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 1909)
- Waynesville v. . Satterthwait (N.C. 1904)
- Hays County, Texas, Ruben Becerra, Debbie Ingalsbe, Michelle Cohen, Morgan Hammer, and Walt Smith, in Their Official Capacities v. Leslie Carnes, Jim Camp, Cathy Ramsey, and Gabrielle Moore (Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District 2025)
- Hays County, Texas, Ruben Becerra, Debbie Ingalsbe, Michelle Cohen, Morgan Hammer, and Walt Smith, in Their Official Capacities v. Leslie Carnes, Jim Camp, Cathy Ramsey, Gabrielle Moore, and Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas (Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District 2025)
- Town of Westlake, Texas v. City of Southlake, Texas (Tex. App. 2021)
- City of Gainesville v. Amarose (Tex. App. 1934)
- City of Lockhart v. Commissioners' Court of Caldwell County (Tex. App. 1925)
- Benat v. Dallas County (Tex. App. 1924)
- Cowand v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 1918)
- City of Trinidad v. County Commissioners (Colo. App. 1915)
- City of Trinidad v. County Commissioners (Colo. App. 1915)
- Waynesville v. Satterthwait (N.C. 1904)
- Ex Parte Cross (Tex. Crim. App. 1902)
- Almand v. Atlanta Consolidated Street Railway Co. (Ga. 1899)
- Huddleston v. City of Eugene (Or. 1899)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This was an indictment against an Overseer of a road for neglecting to repair it. There was a demurrer to the indictment, on several grounds ; one of which was, that the road described in the indictment, and the unrepaired parts thereof as alleged, lie within thq corporate limits of the town of Goliad of said county, and that the County Court had no control over the same or the right to appoint Overseers within said limits.' Whether the County Court or Town Council had jurisdiction was the only question about which there was a contest in the case, and that this might be determined the more conveniently, the counsel of the parties agreed upon the facts and submitted them to the Court.
There is some difficulty in deciding the law upon a case, under an exception, when the facts do not appear on the face of the pleadings excepted to. But the Court gave a satisfactory reason for considering the question when presented in •this form, a question decisive of the controversy, which must
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.