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 2 courts 1984–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
SEA HAWK SEAFOODS, INC. v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See, e.g., Sea Hawk Seafoods, Inc. v. State, 215 P.3d 333, 339 (Aaska 2009) (describing state sovereign immunity as an affirmative defense “that does not affect a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction”); Washington v. Whitaker, 317 S.C. 108 , 451 S.E.2d 894, 898 (1994) (“[W]e overrule the antiquated rule that sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional bar and, accordingly, cannot be waived. 2012See, e.g., Sea Hawk Seafoods, Inc. v. State, 215 P.3d 333, 339 (Alaska 2009) (describing state sovereign immunity as an affirmative defense “that does not affect a court’s subject- matter jurisdiction”); Washington v. Whitaker, 451 S.E.2d 894, 898 (S.C. 1994) (“[W]e overrule the antiquated rule that sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional bar and, accordingly, cannot be waived. | 2 | 2 |
Washington v. Whitakergreen2 sentences2012See, e.g., Sea Hawk Seafoods, Inc. v. State, 215 P.3d 333, 339 (Aaska 2009) (describing state sovereign immunity as an affirmative defense “that does not affect a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction”); Washington v. Whitaker, 317 S.C. 108 , 451 S.E.2d 894, 898 (1994) (“[W]e overrule the antiquated rule that sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional bar and, accordingly, cannot be waived. 2012See, e.g., Sea Hawk Seafoods, Inc. v. State, 215 P.3d 333, 339 (Aaska 2009) (describing state sovereign immunity as an affirmative defense “that does not affect a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction”); Washington v. Whitaker, 317 S.C. 108 , 451 S.E.2d 894, 898 (1994) (“[W]e overrule the antiquated rule that sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional bar and, accordingly, cannot be waived. | 2 | 2 |
Meyers ex rel. Benzing v. Texasgreen1 sentence2015Benzing v. Tex., 410 F.3d 236, 255 (5th Cir. 2005) overrule the antiquated rule that sovereign immunity is a ("[W]hen Texas removed this case to federal court it jurisdictional bar and, accordingly, cannot be waived. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sanchez v. Schindler
green
2 sentences1986Although the Sanchez court was dealing with the Wrongful Death Act, they recognized earlier restrictions placed on recovery by the Supreme Court, and they reasoned, “It is, therefore, logical for this court to now act in response to the needs of a modem society, and abolish the antiquated rule in favor of recovery of loss of society and mental anguish.” Id. at 252 . 1986Although the Sanchez court was dealing with the Wrongful Death Act, they recognized earlier restrictions placed on recovery by the Supreme Court, and they reasoned, "It is, therefore, logical for this court to now act in response to the needs of a modern society, and abolish the antiquated rule in favor of recovery of loss of society and mental anguish." Id. at 252 . | 2 | 1984–1986 |
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.