How cited: Sisco v. Hereford · Go Syfert

Sisco v. Hereford (1984)

green · 14 citation events across 2 courts. Showing the 9 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Samuelson v. Alvarado, 847 S.W.2d 319, 323 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1993, no writ); Sisco v. Hereford, 694 S.W.2d 3, 7-8 (Tex.App.San Antonio 1984, writ refd n.r.e.); Meredith v. Eddy, 616 S.W.2d 235, 240 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1981, no writ).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Therefore, the default rule, created by chapter 65 and the rules of civil procedure, is that the rules of equity control the granting of temporary-injunctive relief unless a particular statute provides otherwise. “[T]he inadequacies of the remedy at law [are] both the foundation of and conversely a limitation on equity jurisdiction.” Sisco v. Hereford , 694 S.W.2d 3, 7 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Therefore, the default rule, created by chapter 65 and the rules of civil procedure, is that the rules of equity control the granting of temporary-injunctive relief unless a particular statute provides otherwise. “[T]he inadequacies of the remedy at law [are] both the foundation of and conversely a limitation on equity jurisdiction.” Sisco v. Hereford, 694 S.W.2d 3, 7 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
green State v. Morales (1994)
Rule Authority · Tex.
Sisco v. Hereford, 694 S.W.2d 3, 7 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1984, writ refd n.r.e.) (“It has long been established that the inadequacies of the remedy at law is both the foundation of and conversely the limitation on equity jurisdiction.”); Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 186 S.W.2d 306, 314 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1944, writ ref'd w.o.m.) (“[T]he inadequacy of the remedy at law is both the foundation of, and conversely a limitation on, equity jurisdiction.”); Joseph R.
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Heller v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 708 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Sisco v. Hereford, 694 S.W.2d 3, 9 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Sisco v. Hereford, 694 S.W.2d 3, 9 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1984, no writ); Lede v. Aycock, 630 S.W.2d 669, 674 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, writ ref’d. n.r.e.).
Cited · Tex. App. · signal: see
See Cardinal Health Staffing Network, Inc. v. Bowen, 106 S.W.3d 230, 235 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (“[T]he inadequacies of the remedy at law [are] both the foundation of and conversely a limitation on equity jurisdiction.”) (quoting Sisco v. Hereford, 694 S.W.2d 3, 7 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.)).
Cited · Tex. App. · signal: see
See Cardinal Health Staffing Network, Inc. v. Bowen, 106 S.W.3d 230, 235 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (“[T]he inadequacies of the remedy at law [are] both the foundation of and conversely a limitation on equity jurisdiction.”) (quoting Sisco v. Hereford, 694 S.W.2d 3, 7 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.)).
Cited · Tex. App. · signal: see
See Cardinal Health Staffing Network, Inc. v. Bowen, 106 S.W.3d 230, 235 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (“[T]he inadequacies of the remedy at law [are] both the foundation of and conversely a limitation on equity jurisdiction.”) (quoting Sisco v. Hereford, 694 S.W.2d 3, 7 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.)); see also Montfort v. Trek Res., Inc., 198 S.W.3d 344, 350 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2006, no pet.) (including adequate remedy at law in list of ele…