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.
6 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Andrew Anderson v. Jerry v. Durant, Jerry v. Durant, Inc. D/B/A Durant Toyota and D/B/A Jerry Durant Toyota, Jerry Durant Hyundai, LLC, Doyle Maynard, and Robert G. Cote, Sr., Gary Michael Deere, Jerry Rash, and Elliot "scooter" Michelsongreen2 sentences2026Amount Zafar next asserts that the $255,004 amount awarded for Sanghier’s past mental anguish “is excessive.” She emphasizes the high ratio of noneconomic damages to economic damages, compares the past-mental-anguish award to that in other cases, and argues that the jury’s awarding the same amount for both past and future mental anguish and awarding an even $1 million total “indicates that the jury . . . picked a number at random.” “We review an excessiveness challenge for factual sufficiency, something that is committed to our exclusive jurisdiction, and that is highly deferential to the jury 2022Bearden assails these amounts as “exorbitantly excessive.” We review an excessiveness challenge for factual sufficiency, something that is committed to our exclusive jurisdiction, Anderson, 550 S.W.3d at 620 , and that is “highly deferential to the jury’s findings,” Gordon, 2019 WL 619186 , at *4. | 1 | 2 |
Kurtz v. Kurtzgreen1 sentence2008See Kurtz , 158 S.W.3d at 21 (excessive demand is affirmative defense that must be pleaded); Tuthill , 614 S.W.2d at 212 (excessive demand is affirmative defense that must be pleaded, and the party asserting excessive demand must request and obtain findings of fact on the essential elements of excessive demand); Sanchez-O = Brien Oil & Gas Corp. v. Austin Res. | 1 | 1 |
Tuthill v. Southwestern Public Service Co.green1 sentence2008See Kurtz , 158 S.W.3d at 21 (excessive demand is affirmative defense that must be pleaded); Tuthill , 614 S.W.2d at 212 (excessive demand is affirmative defense that must be pleaded, and the party asserting excessive demand must request and obtain findings of fact on the essential elements of excessive demand); Sanchez-O = Brien Oil & Gas Corp. v. Austin Res. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Atkins v. Virginia
green
2 sentences2010Atkins, 536 U.S. at 311-12 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 . 2010Atkins, 536 U.S. at 311-12 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 . | 3 | 2009–2010 |
Tom Bennett and James B. Bonham Corporation v. Larry Wayne Grant
green
1 sentence2026The “amount awarded must be fair and reasonable compensation, given the evidence presented.” Bennett, 525 S.W.3d at 648 ; see Bearden, 2022 WL 3273598 , at *19 (noting that there are “few specific guideposts to follow” in appellate review of amount of noneconomic-damages award). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
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.