Wells v. Dotson (2008)
green
· 64 citation events
across 3 courts.
Showing the 27 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200620162026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Darren S. Fallis and Wife Stacy D. Fallis v. River Mountain Ranch Property Owners Association, Inc. (2010)
Oliver v. Oliver, 889 S.W.2d 271, 273 (Tex. 1994); Wells v. Dotson, 261 S.W.3d 275, 281 (Tex. App.— Tyler 2008, no pet.).
green
Gaetan Pelletier and Pelletier Management and Consulting, LLC v. Victoria Air Conditioning, Ltd. (2022)
Baptist Church v. Jefferson, 317 S.W.3d 540, 545 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied); Wells v. Dotson, 261 S.W.3d 275, 281 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2008, no pet.).
green
Ardmore, Inc F/K/A GHX Incorporated and Star Properties, LLC v. the Rex Group, Inc. D/B/A T-3 Support Service… (2012)
“The general rule is that only the parties to a contract have the right to complain of a breach thereof; and if they are satisfied with the disposition that has been made of it and all claims under it, a third person has no right to insist that it has been broken.” Wells v. Dotson, 261 S.W.3d 275, 284 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2008, no pet.); see also Allan v. Nersesova, 307 S.W.3d 564, 571 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.) (holding party must be in privity of contract or beneficiary of…
green
Pitts & Collard, L.L.P. v. Schechter (2011)
Arnett Grain Co., 560 S.W.2d 85, 88 (Tex.1977) (interpreting predecessor statute substantially similar to section 16.069); accord Leasure v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 722 S.W.2d 37, 38 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, no writ); Wells v. Dotson, 261 S.W.3d 275, 280-81 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2008, no pet.).
green
Smith v. CDI RENTAL EQUIPMENT, LTD. (2010)
Wells v. Dotson, 261 S.W.3d 275, 284 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2008, no pet.).
green
Rex Smith v. CDI Rental Equipment, Ltd. D/B/A Future Rental Services and FEI Equipment, Ltd. D/B/A Future Equ… (2010)
Wells v. Dotson, 261 S.W.3d 275, 284 (Tex. App. – Tyler 2008, no pet.).
green
Nezat v. Pfitzner (2025)
To determine what constitutes a “transaction,” the Court applies the logical relationship test, which asks “whether the essential facts on which the claims are based are significantly and logically relevant to both claims.” Wells v. Dotson, 261 S.W.3d 275, 281 (Tex.App.-Tyler, 2008).
green
John Thomas Aiken v. Angelique S. Naylor (2015)
The purpose of this section is to prevent a party from waiting until an opponent’s valid claim that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence is time-barred before asserting its own claim.2 Wells v. Dotson, 261 S.W.3d 275, 281 (Tex. App. Tyler 2008, no pet.) (citing Hobbs Trailers v. JT Arnett Grain Co., Inc., 560S.W.2d 85, 88-89 (Tex. 1977). 5.22 Here, Aiken filed his Original Petition on October 10, 2013, and an Amended Petition on October 14, 2013.
green
Kiper v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2012)
Moreover Defendants cite to Wells v. Dotson, 261 S.W.3d 275, 285 (Tex.App.Tyler 2008), in which the court found that a lessee’s wife lacked standing to sue the lessor’s heirs for breach of lease with option to purchase even though she had a presumptive community property interest in the option to purchase the leased prop erty from the lessor because it was acquired during their marriage.
Wells v. Dotson, 261 S.W.3d 275, 281 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2008, no pet.) (citing Cmty. State Bank v. NSW Invs., 38 S.W.3d 256, 258 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001, pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (considering the term “transaction” in determining whether a counterclaim was compulsory)); see Smith v. Ferguson, 160 S.W.3d 115, 120 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, pet. denied).
green
Sjw Property Commerce, Inc. N/K/A Lease Holding, Inc. and Property Commerce Development Company N/K/A Develop… (2010)
Wells v. Dotson , 261 S.W.3d 275, 281 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2008, no pet.) (citing Cmty. State Bank v. NSW Invs. , 38 S.W.3d 256, 258 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2001, pet. dism'd w.o.j.) (considering the term "transaction" in determining whether a counterclaim was compulsory); see Smith v. Ferguson , 160 S.W.3d 115, 120 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, pet. denied).
green
Holman Street Baptist Church v. Jefferson (2010)
Wells v. Dotson, 261 S.W.3d 275, 281 (Tex.App.Tyler 2008, no pet.) (citing Hobbs Trailers v. J.T.
green
Paul Schambacher AND R.E.I. Electric, Inc. v. R.E.I Electric, Inc. and Garland Insulating, Ltd. AND Paul Scha… (2010)
Wells v. Dotson , 261 S.W.3d 275, 284 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2008, no pet.); see Jensen Constr.
green
Sjw Property Commerce, Inc. N/K/A Lease Holding, Inc. and Property Commerce Development Company N/K/A Develop… (2010)
Wells v. Dotson , 261 S.W.3d 275, 281 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2008, no pet.) (citing Cmty. State Bank v. NSW Invs. , 38 S.W.3d 256, 258 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2001, pet. dism'd w.o.j.) (considering the term "transaction" in determining whether a counterclaim was compulsory)); see Smith v. Ferguson , 160 S.W.3d 115, 120 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, pet. denied).
green
Sjw Property v. Southwest Pinnacle Props. (2010)
Wells v. Dotson, 261 S.W.3d 275, 281 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2008, no pet.) (citing Cmty. State Bank v. NSW Invs., 38 S.W.3d 256, 258 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001, pet. dism'd w.o.j.) (considering the term "transaction" in determining whether a counterclaim was compulsory)); see Smith v. Ferguson, 160 S.W.3d 115, 120 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, pet. denied).
green
Cleo Elizabeth McKinley Cearley v. Sue Burgess (2010)
To determine what constitutes a “transaction” under section 16.609, “we employ the logical relationship test, which asks whether the essential facts on which the claims are based are significantly and logically relevant to both claims.” Wells v. Dotson, 5 Section 16.069 could not have saved Hino Power’s counterclaims, on the other hand, as Hino Power was first sued in 2004 and did not counterclaim until 2006. 11 261 S.W.3d 275, 281 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2008, no pet.).
green
Texas Energy Innovation, Inc., F/K/A Power Choice, Inc.// Hino Electric Power Company, Inc. and Hino Electric… (2010)
To determine what constitutes a "transaction" under section 16.609, "we employ the logical relationship test, which asks whether the essential facts on which the claims are based are significantly and logically relevant to both claims." Wells v. Dotson , 261 S.W.3d 275, 281 (Tex. App.--Tyler 2008, no pet.).
Wells v. Dotson, 261 S.W.3d 275, 284 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2008, no pet.) (citing Grinnell v. Munson, 137 S.W.3d 706, 712 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, no pet.)); El Paso Cmty. Partners v. B & G/Sunrise Joint Venture, 24 S.W.3d 620, 626 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.).
green
in Re Richard Scheller (2009)
To determine what constitutes a “transaction” under section 16.609, “we employ the logical relationship test, which asks whether the essential facts on which the claims are based are significantly and logically relevant to both claims.” Wells v. Dotson, 261 S.W.3d 275, 281 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2008, no pet.).
green
Martin Saucedo Castor v. State (2006)
Wells v. Dotson , 261 S.W.3d 275, 284 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2008, no pet.) (citing Grinnell v. Munson , 137 S.W.3d 706, 712 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, no pet.)); El Paso Cmty. Partners v. B & G/Sunrise Joint Venture , 24 S.W.3d 620, 626 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.).
citing Grinnell v. Munson , 137 S.W.3d 706, 712 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, no pet.)
“To be logically related, the essential facts on which the claims are based must be significantly and logically relevant to both claims.” Rahlek, 587 S.W.3d at 74; see also Wells v. Dotson, 261 S.W.3d 275, 281 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2008, no pet.).
green
Courtney Sanders, Individually and as Dependent Administrator of the Estate of William Paul Brown v. Charlott… (2019)
See Wells v. Dotson, 261 S.W.3d 275, 284 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2008, no pet.).
green
Rahlek, Ltd.. v. Robert G. Wells (2019)
See Wells v. Dotson, 261 S.W.3d 275, 281 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2008, no pet.).
green
Pitts & Collard, L.L.P. and Gary Pitts v. Arthur L. Schechter Arthur L. Schechter, P.C. D/B/A Schechter & Ass… (2011)
Sign Co. , 718 S.W.2d 397, 400 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.); accord Wells , 261 S.W.3d at 281 .
See Wells v. Dotson, 261 S.W.3d 275, 284 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2008, no pet.); Yasuda Fire, 225 S.W.3d at 898 .
See Wells v. Dotson , 261 S.W.3d 275, 284 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2008, no pet.); Yasuda Fire & Marine Ins.
See Wells v. Dotson , 261 S.W.3d 275, 284 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2008, no pet.); Yasuda Fire , 225 S.W.3d at 898 .