42 Texas opinions name it 4 courts 1925–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2015Richey v. Bolerjack, 594 S.W.2d 795 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1980, no writ); Johnson v. Johnson, 572 S.W.2d 364, 366 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1978, no writ). 1990Richey v. Bolerjack, 594 S.W.2d 795 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1980, no writ); Johnson v. Johnson, 572 S.W.2d 364, 366 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1978, no writ). | 2 | 2 |
Aldrich v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Id., citing Aldrich v. State, 104 S.W.3d 890, 895 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). 2010Id. , citing Aldrich v. State , 104 S.W.3d 890, 895 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). | 2 | 2 |
In Re SBgreen2 sentences2006The two previous adjudications must be separate and in addition to the adjudication on which the modification is based. " In re S.B., 94 S.W.3d 717, 719 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002, no pet.) (emphasis added). 2006The two previous adjudications must be separate and in addition to the adjudication on which the modification is based.” In re S.B., 94 S.W.3d 717, 719 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002, no pet.) (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
In Re EDgreen2 sentences2005In re E.D., 127 S.W.3d 860, 862-63 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, no pet.). “[A] disposition based on a finding that the child engaged in delinquent conduct that violates a penal law of this state or of the United States of the grade of felony, or if the requirements of Subsection (k) are met, of the grade of misdemeanor, may be modified so as to commit the child to [TYC] if the court after a hearing to modify disposition finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the child violated a reasonable and lawful order of the court.” Tex. Fam. 2005In re E.D. , 127 S.W.3d 860, 862-63 (Tex. App.--Austin 2004, no pet.). "[A] disposition based on a finding that the child engaged in delinquent conduct that violates a penal law of this state or of the United States of the grade of felony, or if the requirements of Subsection (k) are met, of the grade of misdemeanor, may be modified so as to commit the child to [TYC] if the court after a hearing to modify disposition finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the child violated a reasonable and lawful order of the court." Tex. Fam. | 2 | 2 |
Richey v. Bolerjackgreen2 sentences2015Richey v. Bolerjack, 594 S.W.2d 795 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1980, no writ); Johnson v. Johnson, 572 S.W.2d 364, 366 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1978, no writ). 1998Id. at 799 (citations omitted); accord Cisneros v. Cisneros, 787 S.W.2d 550, 551 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1990, no writ) (because the provisions in the decree relating to child support were based on the written agreement of the parties, any ambiguity in the decree would be susceptible to interpretation by the trial court after hearing the evidence as in the case of an agreed judgment. | 1 | 3 |
Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Drewery Construction Co.green1 sentence2018Co., 186 S.W.3d 571, 573 (Tex. 2006). 2 Mays asserts, and the trial court found after hearing, that “service of citation was accomplished upon the Secretary of State on May 10, 2017.” However, the secretary of state is agent of an entity for service of process only “if the registered agent of the entity cannot with reasonable diligence be found at the registered office of the entity.” Tex. Bus. | 1 | 1 |
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Inmangreen1 sentence2018Cf. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Inman, 252 S.W.3d 299, 304 (Tex. 2008) (“Without To the extent Washington is asserting that he did not receive a copy of APD’s 4 and Walsh’s responses to the trial court after the hearing on Washington’s new-trial motion, the record belies that assertion. 7 jurisdiction, the trial court should not render judgment that the plaintiffs take nothing; it should simply dismiss the case.”). | 1 | 1 |
Sixth RMA Partners, L.P. v. Sibleygreen1 sentence2008See Sixth RMA Partners, L.P. v. Sibley , 111 S.W.3d 46, 52 (Tex. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Judwin Properties, Inc. v. Griggs & Harrisongreen1 sentence2003Judwin Prop., Inc. v. Griggs & Harrison, 911 S.W.2d 498, 503 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
Cisneros v. Cisnerosgreen2 sentences1998Id. at 799 (citations omitted); accord Cisneros v. Cisneros, 787 S.W.2d 550, 551 (Tex. App.El Paso 1990, no writ) (because the provisions in the decree relating to child support were based on the written agreement of the parties, any ambiguity in the decree would be susceptible to interpretation by the trial court after hearing the evidence as in the case of an agreed judgment. 1998Id. at 799 (citations omitted); accord Cisneros v. Cisneros, 787 S.W.2d 550, 551 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1990, no writ) (because the provisions in the decree relating to child support were based on the written agreement of the parties, any ambiguity in the decree would be susceptible to interpretation by the trial court after hearing the evidence as in the case of an agreed judgment. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mendez v. State
green
2 sentences2010Id., citing Aldrich v. State, 104 S.W.3d 890, 895 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). 2010Id. , citing Aldrich v. State , 104 S.W.3d 890, 895 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Finch v. State
neutral
2 sentences1983Finch v. State, 506 S.W.2d 749 (Tex.Civ.App.Waco 1974, no writ). 1983Finch v. State, 506 S.W.2d 749 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1974, no writ). | 2 | 1983–1983 |
Brenan v. Court of Civil Appeals, Fourteenth District
green
2 sentences1975Brenan v. Court of Civil Appeals, Fourteenth District, 444 S.W.2d 290 (Tex.Sup.1968). 1975Brenan v. Court of Civil Appeals, Fourteenth District, 444 S.W.2d 290 (Tex.Sup.1968). | 2 | 1975–1975 |
Barbee v. State
green
2 sentences1975In Miller v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 455 S.W.2d 253 , under similar circumstances, the Court said: “In Jupe v. State, 86 Tex.Cr.R. 573 , 217 S.W. 1041 , this Court stated: ‘[i]f appellant wishes to use his wife as a witness he will observe the rules of the court with reference to placing witnesses under the rule.’ “In Barbee v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 432 S.W.2d 78 , the wife remained in the courtroom during the trial after the rule had been invoked, and the Court held that it was not error to refuse to permit her to testify in support of a bill of exception. 1970In Jupe v. State, 86 Tex.Cr.R. 573 , 217 S.W. 1041 , this Court stated: “[i]f appellant wishes to use his wife as a witness he will observe the rules of the court with reference to placing witnesses under the rule.” In Barbee v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 432 S.W.2d 78 , the wife remained in the courtroom during the trial after the rule had been invoked, and the Court held that it was not error to refuse to permit her to testify in support of a bill of exception. | 2 | 1970–1975 |
Jupe v. State
neutral
2 sentences1975In Miller v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 455 S.W.2d 253 , under similar circumstances, the Court said: “In Jupe v. State, 86 Tex.Cr.R. 573 , 217 S.W. 1041 , this Court stated: ‘[i]f appellant wishes to use his wife as a witness he will observe the rules of the court with reference to placing witnesses under the rule.’ “In Barbee v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 432 S.W.2d 78 , the wife remained in the courtroom during the trial after the rule had been invoked, and the Court held that it was not error to refuse to permit her to testify in support of a bill of exception. 1975In Miller v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 455 S.W.2d 253 , under similar circumstances, the Court said: “In Jupe v. State, 86 Tex.Cr.R. 573 , 217 S.W. 1041 , this Court stated: ‘[i]f appellant wishes to use his wife as a witness he will observe the rules of the court with reference to placing witnesses under the rule.’ “In Barbee v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 432 S.W.2d 78 , the wife remained in the courtroom during the trial after the rule had been invoked, and the Court held that it was not error to refuse to permit her to testify in support of a bill of exception. | 2 | 1970–1975 |
Beck v. State
green
1 sentence2014State, 651 S.W.2d 827 ,827 Tex App, Houstn (1st DIST.) 1983 no pets Prayer for Relief I ask the Court after hearing the case that you will reverse my conviction of 1 yr probation and 1500.00 of a misdemeaner offense of false report to a peace officer Appendix Judgement of Court of Midland COUNTY Opinion of Court of Appeals Denial of Motion to Rehear Denial of discretionary to review Certificate of service I Ammie Smith do hear by certify that a true copy and correct of the ongoing brief for Appeallante was sent on Dec.25,2014 by United States mail,deliverery to the following party Teresa J. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Ex Parte Smith
green
1 sentence2007That it appears from the face thereof that a prosecution for the offense is barred by a lapse of time, . . . .” Id. 5: Appellant filed a motion to set aside the misdemeanor indictment, which motion was denied by the trial court after a hearing. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Rajski v. State
green
1 sentence1996White’s deposition was not taken pursuant to a request by Roberts which was granted by the trial court after a hearing in which Roberts demonstrated a “good reason exists for taking the deposition.” Id. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Abdnor v. State
green
2 sentences1996In Abdnor v. State, 712 S.W.2d 136 (Tex.Crim.App.1986), this Court analyzed art. 40.09, § 5 and recognized that an appellant's compliance with that statute required both that the appellant exercise due diligence in asserting his indigency and that the appellant carry the burden of proof at the hearing to prove the veracity of his indigency claim. 1996In Abdnor v. State, 712 S.W.2d 136 (Tex.Crim.App.1986), this Court analyzed art. 40.09, § 5 and recognized that an appellant’s compliance with that statute required both that the appellant exercise due diligence in asserting his indigency and that the appellant carry the burden of proof at the hearing to prove the veracity of his indigency claim. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Wm. T. Jarvis Co., Inc. v. Wes-Tex Grain Co.
green
2 sentences1986In Jarvis, supra, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed an order of dismissal for want of prosecution because “the case was fraught with much activity on the part of Plaintiffs” and because “the trial court after hearing dismissed the cause for want of prosecution twenty-five days before it was scheduled to go to trial.” 548 S.W.2d at 778 . 1986In Jarvis, supra, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed an order of dismissal for want of prosecution because “the case was fraught with much activity on the part of Plaintiffs” and because “the trial court after hearing dismissed the cause for want of prosecution twenty-five days before it was scheduled to go to trial.” 548 S.W.2d at 778 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
McAllen Coca Cola Bottling Co., Inc. v. Alvarez
green
1 sentence1980McAllen Coca Cola Bottling Co., Inc. v. Alvarez, supra. There were no findings of fact filed by the trial court after its hearing upon defendant’s motion for new trial. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Miller v. State
green
1 sentence1975In Miller v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 455 S.W.2d 253 , under similar circumstances, the Court said: “In Jupe v. State, 86 Tex.Cr.R. 573 , 217 S.W. 1041 , this Court stated: ‘[i]f appellant wishes to use his wife as a witness he will observe the rules of the court with reference to placing witnesses under the rule.’ “In Barbee v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 432 S.W.2d 78 , the wife remained in the courtroom during the trial after the rule had been invoked, and the Court held that it was not error to refuse to permit her to testify in support of a bill of exception. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Rothermel v. Goodrich
green
1 sentence1970Hodges v. State, 198 S.W.2d 150 (Tex.Civ.App., Austin, 1946, no writ); Rothermel v. Goodrich, 292 S.W.2d 882 (Tex.Civ.App., Beaumont, 1956, no writ); Northcutt v. Waren, 326 S.W.2d 10 (Tex.Civ.App., Texarkana, 1959, writ ref. n. r. e.); City of Houston v. Rose, 361 S.W.2d 477 (Tex.Civ.App., Houston, 1962, no writ); West v. Pennyrich International, Inc., 447 S.W.2d 771 (Tex.Civ.App., Waco, 1969), decided October 23, 1969. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Simmons v. State
green
1 sentence1970Such plea was heard together in the trial court with the pleas of guilty in Simmons v. State, 457 S.W.2d 281 and Simmons v. State, 457 S.W.2d 284 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Simmons v. State
green
1 sentence1970Such plea was heard together in the trial court with the pleas of guilty in Simmons v. State, 457 S.W.2d 281 and Simmons v. State, 457 S.W.2d 284 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Northcutt v. Waren
green
1 sentence1970Hodges v. State, 198 S.W.2d 150 (Tex.Civ.App., Austin, 1946, no writ); Rothermel v. Goodrich, 292 S.W.2d 882 (Tex.Civ.App., Beaumont, 1956, no writ); Northcutt v. Waren, 326 S.W.2d 10 (Tex.Civ.App., Texarkana, 1959, writ ref. n. r. e.); City of Houston v. Rose, 361 S.W.2d 477 (Tex.Civ.App., Houston, 1962, no writ); West v. Pennyrich International, Inc., 447 S.W.2d 771 (Tex.Civ.App., Waco, 1969), decided October 23, 1969. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
West v. Pennyrich International, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1970Hodges v. State, 198 S.W.2d 150 (Tex.Civ.App., Austin, 1946, no writ); Rothermel v. Goodrich, 292 S.W.2d 882 (Tex.Civ.App., Beaumont, 1956, no writ); Northcutt v. Waren, 326 S.W.2d 10 (Tex.Civ.App., Texarkana, 1959, writ ref. n. r. e.); City of Houston v. Rose, 361 S.W.2d 477 (Tex.Civ.App., Houston, 1962, no writ); West v. Pennyrich International, Inc., 447 S.W.2d 771 (Tex.Civ.App., Waco, 1969), decided October 23, 1969. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
City of Houston v. Rose
neutral
1 sentence1970Hodges v. State, 198 S.W.2d 150 (Tex.Civ.App., Austin, 1946, no writ); Rothermel v. Goodrich, 292 S.W.2d 882 (Tex.Civ.App., Beaumont, 1956, no writ); Northcutt v. Waren, 326 S.W.2d 10 (Tex.Civ.App., Texarkana, 1959, writ ref. n. r. e.); City of Houston v. Rose, 361 S.W.2d 477 (Tex.Civ.App., Houston, 1962, no writ); West v. Pennyrich International, Inc., 447 S.W.2d 771 (Tex.Civ.App., Waco, 1969), decided October 23, 1969. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Hodges v. State
neutral
1 sentence1970Hodges v. State, 198 S.W.2d 150 (Tex.Civ.App., Austin, 1946, no writ); Rothermel v. Goodrich, 292 S.W.2d 882 (Tex.Civ.App., Beaumont, 1956, no writ); Northcutt v. Waren, 326 S.W.2d 10 (Tex.Civ.App., Texarkana, 1959, writ ref. n. r. e.); City of Houston v. Rose, 361 S.W.2d 477 (Tex.Civ.App., Houston, 1962, no writ); West v. Pennyrich International, Inc., 447 S.W.2d 771 (Tex.Civ.App., Waco, 1969), decided October 23, 1969. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Mahan v. State
red
2 sentences1968The motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law, prior to such hearing, when not acted upon during the 20 days allowed by Article 40.05, V.A.C.C.P. (former Article 755) ; Newhall v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 404 S.W.2d 592 ; Smith v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 574 , 316 S.W.2d 750 ; Mahan v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 36 , 288 S.W.2d 508 . 1968The motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law, prior to such hearing, when not acted upon during the 20 days allowed by Article 40.05, V.A.C.C.P. (former Article 755) ; Newhall v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 404 S.W.2d 592 ; Smith v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 574 , 316 S.W.2d 750 ; Mahan v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 36 , 288 S.W.2d 508 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Southwestern Motor Transport Co. v. Valley Weathermaicers, Inc. neutral | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Smith v. State neutral | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Newhall v. State neutral | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Petroleum Casualty Co. v. Lewis neutral | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Smith v. Petroleum Casualty Co. neutral | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Carle v. Carle green | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| Jones v. Pacific Indemnity Co. neutral | 1 | 1959–1959 |
| Dallas General Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers v. Wamix, Inc. green | 1 | 1958–1958 |
| Ex Parte Pat Morris green | 1 | 1958–1958 |
| Hall v. City of Austin neutral | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Callahan v. Staples green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Menefee v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. neutral | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Monkey Grip Rubber Co. v. Walton green | 1 | 1944–1944 |
| Payne v. Brown neutral | 1 | 1943–1943 |
| Dancy v. Stricklinge neutral | 1 | 1943–1943 |
| Clayton v. McKinnon neutral | 1 | 1943–1943 |
| Rainey v. Chambers neutral | 1 | 1943–1943 |
| R. v. Holcomb v. R. T. Burns neutral | 1 | 1934–1934 |
| Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Ass'n v. Stovall neutral | 1 | 1927–1927 |
| Guerra v. Guerra neutral | 1 | 1926–1926 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.