green
Positive treatment
18.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Magdalena Lucero v. the State of Texas
But, as observed in Roberts v. State, 278 S.W.3d 778, 789 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d), “[a]lthough contractual arrangements are generally considered a civil matter and breaches are typically civil matters involving damages, conduct involving contractual arrangements can result in criminal charges in certain circumstances depending on the nature of the actions taken.” So, contrary to appellant’s contention, a dispute being subject to redress through civil means does not, ipso facto, insulate conduct related thereto from criminal prosecution if that conduct otherwise satis…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Perry, Ex Parte James Richard \Rick\""
Roberts v. State, 278 S.W.3d 778, 790-93 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Linda Ramirez v. State
App. 2012); Roberts v. State, 278 S.W.3d 778, 788 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte James Richard \Rick\" Perry"
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Accordingly, section 36.03 cannot be said to be substantially overbroad judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep.41 Moreover, the challenged statute is presumed valid if “closely drawn to match a sufficiently important interest.”42 Coercion occurs when a person illegally threatens to do indirectly what he does not have the power to do directly.43 No public official can hide under the cloak of official authority or the First Amendment in order to commit the crime of 39 Olivas, 203 S.W.3d at 345–46. 40 See Gant v. State, 814 S.W.2d 444, 454 (Tex. App.—Austin 1991, no …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte James Richard \Rick\" Perry"
Roberts v. State, 278 S.W.3d 778, 790-93 (Tex. App.CSan Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Roberts v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Roberts v. State, 278 S.W.3d 778, 794 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008, pet. ref'd).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Scott Allen Vogel v. State
App. 2004); Roberts v. State , 278 S.W.3d 778, 791 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Scott Allen Vogel v. State
App. 2004); Roberts v. State, 278 S.W.3d 778, 791 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mary S. Roberts v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Roberts v. State, 278 S.W.3d 778, 794 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Urdiales v. State
(7×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
CRIM.APP.2002); Roberts v. State, 278 S.W.3d 778, 790 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008, pet. filed); Duncantell v. State, 230 S.W.3d 835, 842-43 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. ref'd).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Urdiales v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
App. 2002); Roberts v. State, 278 S.W.3d 778, 790 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. filed); Duncantell v. State, 230 S.W.3d 835, 842-43 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d).
discussed
Cited "see"
Todd Enright v. Asclepius Panacea, LLC Asclepius Panacea GP, LLC Daily Pharmacy, LLC Daily Pharmacy GP, LLC And Toth Enterprises II, P .A. D/B/A Victory Medical Center
See Retamco Operating, Inc. v. McCallum, 278 S.W.3d 778 (Tex.2009) (per curiam). 4 The Texas long-arm statute provides: “In addition to other acts that may constitute doing business, a nonresident does business in this state if the nonresident: (1) contracts by mail or otherwise with a Texas resident and either party is to perform the contract in whole or in part in this state; (2) commits a tort in whole or in part in this state; or (3) recruits Texas residents, directly or through an intermediary located in this state, for employment inside or outside this state.” TEX.
cited
Cited "see"
Ex Parte Ronald Thompson
See Roberts v. State, 278 S.W.3d 778, 790 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008, pet. ref'd); (citing Duncantell v. State, 230 S.W.3d 835, 843 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. ref'd)).
cited
Cited "see"
Retamco Operating, Inc. v. Republic Drilling Co.
See Retamco Operating, Inc. v. McCallum, 278 S.W.3d 778 (Tex.2009) (per curiam). 4 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Joshua Sanchez v. State
See Moff, 154 S.W.3d at 602 ; see also Roberts v. State, 278 S.W.3d 778, 791-92 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
RETAMCO OPERATING, INC., Petitioner,
v.
DOUGLAS B. McCALLUM, LLC, Respondent
v.
DOUGLAS B. McCALLUM, LLC, Respondent
08-0405.
Texas Supreme Court.
Feb 27, 2009.
James L. Drought, Calhoun Bobbitt, Drought Drought & Bobbitt LLP, James W. Carter, IV, San Antonio TX, for Petitioner., Jesse R. Castillo, Castillo Snyder, P.C., San Antonio, TX, for Respondent.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM.
Retamco Operating, Inc. (ROI), a Texas corporation, sued Paradigm Oil, Inc., another Texas corporation, over unpaid royalties involving Texas oil and gas interests. During the litigation, Paradigm transferred a portion of its Texas oil and gas interests to Douglas B. McCallum, LLC (DMLLC), a Colorado company. The contract for the transfer of the interests was executed in Colorado. ROI then sued DMLLC, alleging that the transfer of the interests was in violation of the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. DMLLC filed a special appearance, arguing that because the parties executed the contract in Colorado, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over DMLLC was not warranted. The trial court granted the special appearance and the court of appeals affirmed. 2008 WL 939196.
For the reasons stated in Retamco Operating, Inc. v. Republic Drilling Co., 278 S.W.3d 333, (Tex.2009), we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and remand for trial.