Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
41 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1876–2026 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hahn v. Lovegreen2 sentences2026“A cloud on title exists when an outstanding claim or encumbrance is shown, which on its face, if valid, would affect or impair the title of the owner of the property.” Hahn v. Love, 321 S.W.3d 517, 531 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) (quoting Angell v. Bailey, 225 S.W.3d 834 , 838 n.6 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.)). 2023“A cloud on title exists when an outstanding claim or encumbrance is shown, which on its face, if valid, would affect or impair the title of the owner of the property.” Hahn v. Love, 321 S.W.3d 517, 531 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied). | 8 | 16 |
In Re Stroud Oil Properties, Inc.green2 sentences2010See Angell v. Bailey , 225 S.W.3d 834 , 838 n.6 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2007, no pet.) ("A cloud on title exists when an outstanding claim or encumbrance is shown, which on its face, if valid, would affect or impair the title of the owner of the property."); see also In re Stroud Oil Props., Inc ., 110 S.W.3d 18, 25-26 (Tex. App.--Waco 2002, orig. proceeding); Wright v. Matthews , 26 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2000, pet. denied); Bell v. Ott , 606 S.W.2d 942, 952-53 (Tex. Civ. 2010See Angell v. Bailey, 225 S.W.3d 834 , 838 n.6 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.) (“A cloud on title exists when an outstanding claim or encumbrance is shown, which on its face, if valid, would affect or impair the title of the owner of the property.”); see also In re Stroud Oil Props., Inc., 110 S.W.3d 18, 25-26 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, orig. proceeding); Wright v. Matthews, 26 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2000, pet. denied); Bell v. Ott, 606 S.W.2d 942, 952-53 (Tex. Civ. | 3 | 3 |
Wright v. Matthewsgreen2 sentences2010See Angell v. Bailey , 225 S.W.3d 834 , 838 n.6 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2007, no pet.) ("A cloud on title exists when an outstanding claim or encumbrance is shown, which on its face, if valid, would affect or impair the title of the owner of the property."); see also In re Stroud Oil Props., Inc ., 110 S.W.3d 18, 25-26 (Tex. App.--Waco 2002, orig. proceeding); Wright v. Matthews , 26 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2000, pet. denied); Bell v. Ott , 606 S.W.2d 942, 952-53 (Tex. Civ. 2010See Angell v. Bailey, 225 S.W.3d 834 , 838 n.6 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.) (“A cloud on title exists when an outstanding claim or encumbrance is shown, which on its face, if valid, would affect or impair the title of the owner of the property.”); see also In re Stroud Oil Props., Inc., 110 S.W.3d 18, 25-26 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, orig. proceeding); Wright v. Matthews, 26 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2000, pet. denied); Bell v. Ott, 606 S.W.2d 942, 952-53 (Tex. Civ. | 3 | 3 |
Angell v. Baileygreen2 sentences2026“A cloud on title exists when an outstanding claim or encumbrance is shown, which on its face, if valid, would affect or impair the title of the owner of the property.” Hahn v. Love, 321 S.W.3d 517, 531 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) (quoting Angell v. Bailey, 225 S.W.3d 834 , 838 n.6 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.)). 2010See Angell v. Bailey , 225 S.W.3d 834 , 838 n.6 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2007, no pet.) ("A cloud on title exists when an outstanding claim or encumbrance is shown, which on its face, if valid, would affect or impair the title of the owner of the property."); see also In re Stroud Oil Props., Inc ., 110 S.W.3d 18, 25-26 (Tex. App.--Waco 2002, orig. proceeding); Wright v. Matthews , 26 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2000, pet. denied); Bell v. Ott , 606 S.W.2d 942, 952-53 (Tex. Civ. | 2 | 7 |
Bell v. Ottgreen2 sentences2024“A cloud on title exists when an outstanding claim or encumbrance is shown, which on its face, if valid, 9 would affect or impair the title of the owner of the property.” Id. (citing Hahn, 321 S.W.3d at 531). 2010See Angell v. Bailey , 225 S.W.3d 834 , 838 n.6 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2007, no pet.) ("A cloud on title exists when an outstanding claim or encumbrance is shown, which on its face, if valid, would affect or impair the title of the owner of the property."); see also In re Stroud Oil Props., Inc ., 110 S.W.3d 18, 25-26 (Tex. App.--Waco 2002, orig. proceeding); Wright v. Matthews , 26 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2000, pet. denied); Bell v. Ott , 606 S.W.2d 942, 952-53 (Tex. Civ. | 2 | 3 |
McNally v. Guevaragreen2 sentences2022See McNally v. Guevara, 52 S.W.3d 195, 196 (Tex. 2001) (concluding judgment in which court did not dispose of defendant’s request for attorney’s fees did not dispose of all claims and parties and was interlocutory); Fleming & Assocs., L.L.P. v. Kirklin, 479 S.W.3d 458, 461 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. denied) (same). 2021McNally v. Guevara, 52 S.W.3d 195, 196 (Tex. 2001) (per curiam). | 2 | 2 |
Sadler v. Duvallgreen2 sentences2007Sadler v. Duvall , 815 S.W.2d 285, 293 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1991, writ denied). 2007Sadler v. Duvall, 815 S.W.2d 285, 293 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1991, writ denied). | 2 | 2 |
Essex Crane Rental Corp. and Vincent A. Morano v. Kenneth Beverlygreen2 sentences2021Essex Crane Rental Corp. v. Carter, 371 S.W.3d 366, 388 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied) (quoting Hahn v. Love, 321 S.W.3d 517, 531 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied)). 2018“A cloud on title exists when an outstanding claim or encumbrance is shown, which on its face, if valid, would affect or impair the title of the owner of the property.” Id. | 1 | 7 |
Jerry Vernon v. William Perrien and Roxanne Perriengreen2 sentences2025Vernon, 390 S.W.3d at 61 (“A cloud on title exists when an outstanding claim or encumbrance is shown, which on its face, if valid, would affect or impair the title of the owner of the property.”). 2014Vernon, 390 S.W.3d at 61 ; Essex Crane Rental Corp., 371 S.W.3d at 387–88. | 1 | 2 |
Bocquet v. Herringgreen1 sentence2022Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19, 21 (Tex. 1998). 7 Therefore, in this case, an outstanding claim for attorney’s fees could “breathe life” into an otherwise moot appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Fleming & Associates, L.L.P. (n/K/A Fleming, Nolen & Jez L.L.P.) and George Fleming v. Charles Kirklin, Stephen Kirklin, Paul Kirklingreen1 sentence2022See McNally v. Guevara, 52 S.W.3d 195, 196 (Tex. 2001) (concluding judgment in which court did not dispose of defendant’s request for attorney’s fees did not dispose of all claims and parties and was interlocutory); Fleming & Assocs., L.L.P. v. Kirklin, 479 S.W.3d 458, 461 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. denied) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Fillion v. David Silvers Co.green1 sentence2021See Wright, 26 S.W.3d at 578 (explaining that the plaintiffs had no equitable title because the purchase price had not been paid in full); Fillion v. David Silvers Co., 709 S.W.2d 240, 247 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (concluding mortgagors were not entitled to judgment for title because they had not tendered the amount owed on the mortgage debt); see also Campo v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. H-15-1091, 2016 U.S. Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co.green1 sentence2017Evangelina contends that an outstanding claim for attorney’s fees should not open the window to intervention, relying on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196, 200 (1988) (holding that federal district court’s decision on merits leaving request for attorney’s fees unresolved was final decision for purposes of appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Farm Bureau County Mutual Insurance Company v. Cristil Rogers
green
2 sentences2018Co. v. Rogers, 455 S.W.3d 161 , 163–64 (Tex. 2015); see also Fuentes v. Zaragoza, No. 01-16-00251-CV, 2017 WL 976079 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 14, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“The outstanding claim for attorney’s fees prevented the judgment from becoming final.”). 2018Co. v. Rogers, 455 S.W.3d 161 , 163–64 (Tex. 2015); see also Fuentes v. Zaragoza, No. 01-16-00251-CV, 2017 WL 976079 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 14, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“The outstanding claim for attorney’s fees prevented the judgment from becoming final.”). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Gordon v. West Houston Trees, Ltd.
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 42 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Williams v. Steves Industries, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015A cloud on Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Alexander, 868 title exists when an outstanding claim or S.W.2d 322 (Tex.1993); Williams v. Steves encumbrance is shown which, on its Industries, Inc., 699 S.W.2d 570 face, if valid, would affect or impair the (Tex.1985). title of the owner of the property. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Thomson v. Locke
green
1 sentence2015Id., (citing Hahn v. Love, 321 S.W.3d 517, 531 (Tex. App. -Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Camarena v. Texas Employment Commission
green
1 sentence2011The first is Camarena v. Texas Employment Commission, 754 S.W.2d 149 (Tex.1988). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Best Investment Company v. Parkhill
green
1 sentence1979This Court has previously defined a cloud on title as follows: “Any deed, contract, judgment or other instrument not void on its face which purports to convey any interest in or makes any charge upon the land of a true owner, the invalidity of which would require proof, is a cloud upon the legal title of the owner.” (Emphasis added.) Best Investment Co. v. Parkhill, 429 S.W.2d 531 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1968, no writ). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Downs v. Stevenson
green
1 sentence1921Johnson v. Newman, 43 Tex. 628 ; Hume v. Ware, 87 Tex. 380 , 28 S. W. 935 ; Nichols v. Crosby, 87 Tex. 443 , 29 S. W. 380 ; Downs v. Stevenson, 56 Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Nichols-Steuart v. Crosby
green
2 sentences1921Johnson v. Newman, 43 Tex. 628 ; Hume v. Ware, 87 Tex. 380 , 28 S. W. 935 ; Nichols v. Crosby, 87 Tex. 443 , 29 S. W. 380 ; Downs v. Stevenson, 56 Tex. Civ. 1921Johnson v. Newman, 43 Tex. 628 ; Hume v. Ware, 87 Tex. 380 , 28 S. W. 935 ; Nichols v. Crosby, 87 Tex. 443 , 29 S. W. 380 ; Downs v. Stevenson, 56 Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Johnson v. Newman
neutral
1 sentence1921Johnson v. Newman, 43 Tex. 628 ; Hume v. Ware, 87 Tex. 380 , 28 S. W. 935 ; Nichols v. Crosby, 87 Tex. 443 , 29 S. W. 380 ; Downs v. Stevenson, 56 Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Hume v. Ware
green
2 sentences1921Johnson v. Newman, 43 Tex. 628 ; Hume v. Ware, 87 Tex. 380 , 28 S. W. 935 ; Nichols v. Crosby, 87 Tex. 443 , 29 S. W. 380 ; Downs v. Stevenson, 56 Tex. Civ. 1921Johnson v. Newman, 43 Tex. 628 ; Hume v. Ware, 87 Tex. 380 , 28 S. W. 935 ; Nichols v. Crosby, 87 Tex. 443 , 29 S. W. 380 ; Downs v. Stevenson, 56 Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Pearson v. Baker
green
1 sentence1876(Preston’s Heirs v. Bowmar, 2 Bibb, 493 .) From which it will follow, that he who sets up and relies on an outstanding claim must show that it embraces the land in contest, and should not succeed by using it when it is uncertain whether it embraces it or not.” (Pearson v. Baker, 4 Dana, 321 .) The application of these general principles to the facts as shown in the record will suffice to obviate all difficulty, as we think, in the proper location of the Moreno grant; at least in doing this so far as it is necessary for the determination of this case, and will show beyond all reasonable doubt t | 1 | 1876–1876 |
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.