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 1959–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ward v. Malonegreen1 sentence2025The reasoning behind our holding is instructive: a deed on its face provides no assurance that its grantee is the actual current title holder because (i) title may transfer outside written conveyances, see id. (finding a contract for deed was evidence of an equitable interest in subject property); Ward, 115 S.W.3d at 271 (“The legal effect of a contract [for deed] is the same as that of a deed with a retained vendor’s lien.”); see also TEX. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman
green
2 sentences2009A person owns an "equitable interest" in property by virtue of "an equitable title or claim[] on equitable grounds, such as the interest held by a trust beneficiary." Id. at 829 . 2009A person owns an “equitable interest” in property by virtue of “an equitable title or claim[ ] on equitable grounds, such as the interest held by a trust beneficiary.” Id. at 829 . | 3 | 2009–2009 |
Yarto v. Gilliland
green
2 sentences2025However, we held in Yarto that the justice court lacked jurisdiction to grant possession based upon a warranty deed favoring plaintiff where there was evidence that defendant had an equitable title claim, specifically an oral contract for deed, because such involved deciding issues of title. 287 S.W.3d at 90 . 2025The reasoning behind our holding is instructive: a deed on its face provides no assurance that its grantee is the actual current title holder because (i) title may transfer outside written conveyances, see id. (finding a contract for deed was evidence of an equitable interest in subject property); Ward, 115 S.W.3d at 271 (“The legal effect of a contract [for deed] is the same as that of a deed with a retained vendor’s lien.”); see also TEX. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Biggs v. Poling
green
1 sentence1959Biggs v. Poling, Tex.Civ.App.1939, 134 S.W.2d 801 , dism. cor. judg. | 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.