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 1976–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kuzniar v. State Farm Lloydsgreen2 sentences2002The closing of the claim file was an objectively verifiable event that unambiguously demonstrated State Farm's intent not to pay the claim, "even if the fact of injury [was] not discovered until later." Kuzniar , 52 S.W.3d at 760 (footnote and citation omitted). 2002The closing of the claim file was an objectively verifiable event that unambiguously demonstrated State Farm’s intent not to pay the claim, “even if the fact of injury [was] not discovered until later.” Kuzniar, 52 S.W.3d at 760 (footnote and citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Ford Motor Co. v. Wardgreen1 sentence2015See id., ' F-11. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sv v. Rv
green
2 sentences2001The closing of the claim file was an objectively verifiable event that unambiguously demonstrated State Farm's intent not to pay the claim, "even if the fact of injury [was] not discovered until later." See id. at 4 . 2001The closing of the claim file was an objectively verifiable event that unambiguously demonstrated State Farm’s intent not to pay the claim, “even if the fact of injury [was] not discovered until later.” See id. at 4 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Murray v. San Jacinto Agency, Inc.
green
2 sentences2001The dissent relies on a footnote in Murray v. San Jacinto Agency, Inc., 800 S.W.2d 826 (Tex.1990) to support its argument that the legal injury rule does not apply in this case, but that a "special" and different test is applied in determining when a cause of action accrues against an insurance company in a bad faith failure to pay case. 2001The dissent relies on a footnote in Murray v. San Jacinto Agency, Inc., 800 S.W.2d 826 (Tex.1990) to support its argument that the legal injury rule does not apply in this case, but that a “special” and different test is applied in determining when a cause of action accrues against an insurance company in a bad faith failure to pay case. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Muskego-Norway Consolidated Schools Joint School District No. 9 v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board
green
2 sentences1976In Muskego-Norway Consolidated Schools Joint School District v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 32 Wis.2d 478 , 151 N.W.2d 84 (1967), the court held that a statute requiring the State Employment Relations Board to file its findings and decision within 60 days after the closing of a hearing was held to be directory and not mandatory. 1976In Muskego-Norway Consolidated Schools Joint School District v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 32 Wis.2d 478 , 151 N.W.2d 84 (1967), the court held that a statute requiring the State Employment Relations Board to file its findings and decision within 60 days after the closing of a hearing was held to be directory and not mandatory. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Carrigan v. Illinois Liquor Control Commission
green
2 sentences1976In Carrigan v. Illinois Liquor Control Commission, 19 Ill.2d 230 , 166 N.E.2d 574 (1960), the Illinois Supreme Court was considering certain provisions of the Liquor Control Act. 1976In Carrigan v. Illinois Liquor Control Commission, 19 Ill.2d 230 , 166 N.E.2d 574 (1960), the Illinois Supreme Court was considering certain provisions of the Liquor Control Act. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.