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 2014–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kennedy v. Andover Place Apartmentsgreen2 sentences2024See Abraham, 578 S.W.3d at 662 (holding that appellant “present[ed] an arguable basis for asserting a right to possession” because his lease contained “an automatic renewal clause” and because he “challenge[d] the reason underlying the lease’s termination”); Kennedy, 203 S.W.3d at 497 (“[A]lthough the initial term of [the appellant’s] lease expired during the pendency of this action[,] . . . [the appellant] has 5 In her reply brief, Jimison argues that she was not required to supersede the judgment because she is indigent. 2019See Geters , 430 S.W.3d at 581-83 ; Kennedy , 203 S.W.3d at 497 ; see also Briones , 438 S.W.3d at 813 (where the appellant "present[s] a contention that the lease was not properly terminated in the first place," the appellant "assert[s] a right to current possession of the premises"). | 2 | 4 |
Jessica Briones v. Brazos Bend Villa Apartmentsgreen2 sentences2019See Geters, 430 S.W.3d at 581-83 ; Kennedy, 203 S.W.3d at 497 ; see also Briones, 438 S.W.3d at 813 (where the appellant “present[s] a contention that the lease was not properly terminated in the first place,” the appellant “assert[s] a right to current possession of the premises”). 2019See Geters , 430 S.W.3d at 581-83 ; Kennedy , 203 S.W.3d at 497 ; see also Briones , 438 S.W.3d at 813 (where the appellant "present[s] a contention that the lease was not properly terminated in the first place," the appellant "assert[s] a right to current possession of the premises"). | 2 | 2 |
Betty Getters v. the Baytown Housing Authoritygreen2 sentences2019See Geters, 430 S.W.3d at 581-83 ; Kennedy, 203 S.W.3d at 497 ; see also Briones, 438 S.W.3d at 813 (where the appellant “present[s] a contention that the lease was not properly terminated in the first place,” the appellant “assert[s] a right to current possession of the premises”). 2019See Geters , 430 S.W.3d at 581-83 ; Kennedy , 203 S.W.3d at 497 ; see also Briones , 438 S.W.3d at 813 (where the appellant "present[s] a contention that the lease was not properly terminated in the first place," the appellant "assert[s] a right to current possession of the premises"). | 2 | 2 |
Abraham v. Victory Apartmentsgreen1 sentence2024See Abraham, 578 S.W.3d at 662 (holding that appellant “present[ed] an arguable basis for asserting a right to possession” because his lease contained “an automatic renewal clause” and because he “challenge[d] the reason underlying the lease’s termination”); Kennedy, 203 S.W.3d at 497 (“[A]lthough the initial term of [the appellant’s] lease expired during the pendency of this action[,] . . . [the appellant] has 5 In her reply brief, Jimison argues that she was not required to supersede the judgment because she is indigent. | 1 | 1 |
Bockelmann v. Marynickgreen1 sentence2023See Bockelmann v. Marynick, 788 S.W.2d 569, 571 (Tex. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.