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.
5 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1949–1973 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tatum v. Home Improvement Loan Co.
green
2 sentences1959Southwestern Investment Co. v. Allen, Tex.Civ.App., 322 S.W.2d 324 ; Williams v. Rearick, Tex.Civ.App., 218 S.W.2d 225 ; Deaton & Son v. Miller Well Servicing Co., Tex.Civ.App., 231 S.W.2d 944 ; Tatum v. Home Improvement Loan Co., Tex.Civ.App., 300 S.W.2d 215 . 1959Williams v. Rearick, Tex.Civ.App., 218 S.W.2d 225 ; Deaton & Son v. Miller Well Servicing Co., Tex.Civ.App., 231 S.W.2d 944 ; Tatum v. Home Improvement Loan Co., Tex.Civ.App., 300 S.W.2d 215 . | 2 | 1959–1959 |
Williams v. Rearick
green
2 sentences1959Southwestern Investment Co. v. Allen, Tex.Civ.App., 322 S.W.2d 324 ; Williams v. Rearick, Tex.Civ.App., 218 S.W.2d 225 ; Deaton & Son v. Miller Well Servicing Co., Tex.Civ.App., 231 S.W.2d 944 ; Tatum v. Home Improvement Loan Co., Tex.Civ.App., 300 S.W.2d 215 . 1959Williams v. Rearick, Tex.Civ.App., 218 S.W.2d 225 ; Deaton & Son v. Miller Well Servicing Co., Tex.Civ.App., 231 S.W.2d 944 ; Tatum v. Home Improvement Loan Co., Tex.Civ.App., 300 S.W.2d 215 . | 2 | 1959–1959 |
Deaton & Son, Inc. v. Miller Well Servicing Co.
green
2 sentences1959Southwestern Investment Co. v. Allen, Tex.Civ.App., 322 S.W.2d 324 ; Williams v. Rearick, Tex.Civ.App., 218 S.W.2d 225 ; Deaton & Son v. Miller Well Servicing Co., Tex.Civ.App., 231 S.W.2d 944 ; Tatum v. Home Improvement Loan Co., Tex.Civ.App., 300 S.W.2d 215 . 1959Williams v. Rearick, Tex.Civ.App., 218 S.W.2d 225 ; Deaton & Son v. Miller Well Servicing Co., Tex.Civ.App., 231 S.W.2d 944 ; Tatum v. Home Improvement Loan Co., Tex.Civ.App., 300 S.W.2d 215 . | 2 | 1959–1959 |
Moore v. Tucker
neutral
2 sentences1954Moore v. Tucker, Tex.Civ.App., 14 S.W.2d 70 . 1949Moore v. Tucker, Tex.Civ.App., 14 S.W.2d 70 . | 2 | 1949–1954 |
Sheppard v. Zapp
green
1 sentence1973Defendants support their argument under the third point by citing four decisions of the courts of civil appeals to the effect that a defendant “is entitled to be sued in the county of his residence in the absence of any statutory exception and that exceptions to the Plea of Privilege of a citizen to be sued in the county of his domicile must be strictly construed and clearly established.” We accept the statement of the law so made and pass on to the sole remaining authority cited in support of the point: Sheppard v. Zapp, 120 S.W.2d 898 (Tex.Civ.App., Waco, 1938, no writ). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Southwestern Investment Company v. Allen
green
1 sentence1959Southwestern Investment Co. v. Allen, Tex.Civ.App., 322 S.W.2d 324 ; Williams v. Rearick, Tex.Civ.App., 218 S.W.2d 225 ; Deaton & Son v. Miller Well Servicing Co., Tex.Civ.App., 231 S.W.2d 944 ; Tatum v. Home Improvement Loan Co., Tex.Civ.App., 300 S.W.2d 215 . | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Compton v. Elliott
green
2 sentences1959Meredith v. McClendon, 130 Tex. 527 , 111 S.W.2d 1062 ; Coalson v. Holmes, 111 Tex. 502 , 240 S.W. 896 ; Lasater v. Waits, 95 Tex. 553 , 68 S.W. 500 ; Compton v. Elliott, 126 Tex. 232 , 88 S.W.2d 91 .” The right of a resident to be sued in the county of his domicile is a valuable right and it has been held that a defendant is entitled to be sued in the county of his residence in the absence of any statutory exception and that exceptions to the plea of privilege of a citizen to be sued in the county of his domicile must be strictly construed and clearly established. 1959Meredith v. McClendon, 130 Tex. 527 , 111 S.W.2d 1062 ; Coalson v. Holmes, 111 Tex. 502 , 240 S.W. 896 ; Lasater v. Waits, 95 Tex. 553 , 68 S.W. 500 ; Compton v. Elliott, 126 Tex. 232 , 88 S.W.2d 91 .” The right of a resident to be sued in the county of his domicile is a valuable right and it has been held that a defendant is entitled to be sued in the county of his residence in the absence of any statutory exception and that exceptions to the plea of privilege of a citizen to be sued in the county of his domicile must be strictly construed and clearly established. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Federal Mortgage Co. v. Hawkins
green
1 sentence1959Meredith v. McClendon, 130 Tex. 527 , 111 S.W.2d 1062 ; Coalson v. Holmes, 111 Tex. 502 , 240 S.W. 896 ; Lasater v. Waits, 95 Tex. 553 , 68 S.W. 500 ; Compton v. Elliott, 126 Tex. 232 , 88 S.W.2d 91 .” The right of a resident to be sued in the county of his domicile is a valuable right and it has been held that a defendant is entitled to be sued in the county of his residence in the absence of any statutory exception and that exceptions to the plea of privilege of a citizen to be sued in the county of his domicile must be strictly construed and clearly established. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Coalson v. Holmes
green
2 sentences1959Meredith v. McClendon, 130 Tex. 527 , 111 S.W.2d 1062 ; Coalson v. Holmes, 111 Tex. 502 , 240 S.W. 896 ; Lasater v. Waits, 95 Tex. 553 , 68 S.W. 500 ; Compton v. Elliott, 126 Tex. 232 , 88 S.W.2d 91 .” The right of a resident to be sued in the county of his domicile is a valuable right and it has been held that a defendant is entitled to be sued in the county of his residence in the absence of any statutory exception and that exceptions to the plea of privilege of a citizen to be sued in the county of his domicile must be strictly construed and clearly established. 1959Meredith v. McClendon, 130 Tex. 527 , 111 S.W.2d 1062 ; Coalson v. Holmes, 111 Tex. 502 , 240 S.W. 896 ; Lasater v. Waits, 95 Tex. 553 , 68 S.W. 500 ; Compton v. Elliott, 126 Tex. 232 , 88 S.W.2d 91 .” The right of a resident to be sued in the county of his domicile is a valuable right and it has been held that a defendant is entitled to be sued in the county of his residence in the absence of any statutory exception and that exceptions to the plea of privilege of a citizen to be sued in the county of his domicile must be strictly construed and clearly established. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Lasater v. Waits
green
2 sentences1959Meredith v. McClendon, 130 Tex. 527 , 111 S.W.2d 1062 ; Coalson v. Holmes, 111 Tex. 502 , 240 S.W. 896 ; Lasater v. Waits, 95 Tex. 553 , 68 S.W. 500 ; Compton v. Elliott, 126 Tex. 232 , 88 S.W.2d 91 .” The right of a resident to be sued in the county of his domicile is a valuable right and it has been held that a defendant is entitled to be sued in the county of his residence in the absence of any statutory exception and that exceptions to the plea of privilege of a citizen to be sued in the county of his domicile must be strictly construed and clearly established. 1959Meredith v. McClendon, 130 Tex. 527 , 111 S.W.2d 1062 ; Coalson v. Holmes, 111 Tex. 502 , 240 S.W. 896 ; Lasater v. Waits, 95 Tex. 553 , 68 S.W. 500 ; Compton v. Elliott, 126 Tex. 232 , 88 S.W.2d 91 .” The right of a resident to be sued in the county of his domicile is a valuable right and it has been held that a defendant is entitled to be sued in the county of his residence in the absence of any statutory exception and that exceptions to the plea of privilege of a citizen to be sued in the county of his domicile must be strictly construed and clearly established. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Meredith v. McClendon
green
1 sentence1959Meredith v. McClendon, 130 Tex. 527 , 111 S.W.2d 1062 ; Coalson v. Holmes, 111 Tex. 502 , 240 S.W. 896 ; Lasater v. Waits, 95 Tex. 553 , 68 S.W. 500 ; Compton v. Elliott, 126 Tex. 232 , 88 S.W.2d 91 .” The right of a resident to be sued in the county of his domicile is a valuable right and it has been held that a defendant is entitled to be sued in the county of his residence in the absence of any statutory exception and that exceptions to the plea of privilege of a citizen to be sued in the county of his domicile must be strictly construed and clearly established. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
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.