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 1996–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Interstate Northborough Partnership v. Stategreen2 sentences2013The property owners rely on Interstate Northborough Partnership v. Texas, a condemnation case in which the Texas Supreme Court concluded that the community-damage rule did not bar recovery of “increased-proximity damages.” 66 S.W.3d 213, 223 (Tex. 2001). 2012See Interstate Northborough P’ship, 66 S.W.3d at 221 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Schmidtgreen2 sentences2012See Schmidt, 867 S.W.2d at 778 . 2001See Felts, 915 S.W.2d at 485 ; Schmidt, 867 S.W.2d at 775 . | 1 | 2 |
City of Houston v. McFaddengreen2 sentences2001Relying on City of Houston v. McFadden, 420 S.W.2d 811 , (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1967, writ ref'd n.r.e.), appellants also argue that the community damage principle is inapplicable to their claims because “it has been held that actions concerning airports are an obvious exception to community damages because of the specific and unique nature of activities and effects of airport operation adjacent to landowners.” McFadden simply does not stand for such a broad proposition. 1996See, e.g., City of Houston v. McFadden, 420 S.W.2d 811, 814 (Tex.Civ.App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 1967, writ refd n.r.e.). | 1 | 2 |
Felts v. Harris Countygreen2 sentences2001Instead, the very nature of appellants’ complaints suggest the elements of injuries for which they seek compensation are the type experienced by every other property owner in the community which, as noted in Felts , is the “quintessential notion of community damages.” Felts, 915 S.W.2d at 485 . 2001See Felts, 915 S.W.2d at 485 ; Schmidt, 867 S.W.2d at 775 . | 1 | 1 |
Mobil Chemical Company v. Bellgreen1 sentence1996Mobil Chemical Company v. Bell, 517 S.W.2d 245, 256 (Tex.1974). | 1 | 1 |
Morales v. Chrysler Realty Corp.green1 sentence1996In arguing the confusion issue, Holiday Inns first cites Morales v. Chrysler Realty Corp., 843 S.W.2d 275, 278 (Tex.1992), where *621 it was held the trial court properly refused to grant a limiting instruction on community damages in the absence of evidence thereon, because “[a] limiting instruction on the general proscription regarding community damages would have only served to confuse the jury in this case.” Then, Holiday Inns continues, the confusion was evidenced by “Jury Note # 1,” by which the jury requested clarification of the instruction. 3 Yet, Holiday Inns candidly concedes that i | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.