are you aware of whether or not Eligió [Saenz] has any other method of getting to a public roadway, other than through Mrs. Thrash’s property and through your property? A. He’s even going through my, my easement that I bought outright several times, and also through the ranch, through other places. [Emphasis added] Q. Through what other places sir? A. Through mine and Bazans and Manuel Reyes too. He’s been using it, not right now because he locked the gates. [Emphasis added] Xavier Reyes’ testimony raises a genuine issue of material fact on whether the Saenzes have other possible legal means of access to their property and on whether access across the Reyeses’ property is a necessity, as opposed to a mere convenience. See Mitchell v. Castellaw, 151 Tex. 56, 246 S.W.2d 163, 168 (1952) (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION We conclude the Saenzes failed to
holding it is a question of fact holding that whether the defendants confession was voluntary was a mixed question of law and fact subject to de novo review holding that an error pertaining to a mixed question of law and fact under state law is not cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding holding that probable cause determination presents a mixed question of law and fact holding the question of necessity is one of mixed law and fact and accordingly one for the fact finder in the ordinary case