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 2002–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pena v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Pena v. State, 323 S.W.3d 522, 526-27 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2010, no pet.) (stating that ―we do not need to order the trial court to correct the certification because the record affirmatively demonstrates that [appellant] does not have the right to appeal‖ and noting that ―an appellate court can use its discretion to determine when it is appropriate to require a new certification . . .‖); Morgan v. State, 185 S.W.3d 535, 538 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006, pet. ref’d) (same); but see Menjivar v. State, 264 S.W.3d 137, 142 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (―[W]hen the certi | 1 | 1 |
Morgon v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See Pena v. State, 323 S.W.3d 522, 526-27 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2010, no pet.) (stating that ―we do not need to order the trial court to correct the certification because the record affirmatively demonstrates that [appellant] does not have the right to appeal‖ and noting that ―an appellate court can use its discretion to determine when it is appropriate to require a new certification . . .‖); Morgan v. State, 185 S.W.3d 535, 538 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006, pet. ref’d) (same); but see Menjivar v. State, 264 S.W.3d 137, 142 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (―[W]hen the certi 2011See Pena v. State, 323 S.W.3d 522, 526-27 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2010, no pet.) (stating that ―we do not need to order the trial court to correct the certification because the record affirmatively demonstrates that [appellant] does not have the right to appeal‖ and noting that ―an appellate court can use its discretion to determine when it is appropriate to require a new certification . . .‖); Morgan v. State, 185 S.W.3d 535, 538 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006, pet. ref’d) (same); but see Menjivar v. State, 264 S.W.3d 137, 142 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (―[W]hen the certi | 1 | 1 |
Yzaguirre v. Gonzalezgreen2 sentences2002See Yzaguirre v. Gonzalez, 989 S.W.2d 111, 114 (Tex.App.San Antonio 1999, pet. denied) (holding “ ‘motion for rehearing,’ as used in Rule 19.1(b), includes motions for reconsideration en banc”). 2002See Yzaguirre v. *771 Gonzalez, 989 S.W.2d 111, 114 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, pet. denied) (holding "`motion for rehearing,' as used in Rule 19.1(b), includes motions for reconsideration en banc"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Menjivar v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Pena v. State, 323 S.W.3d 522, 526-27 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2010, no pet.) (stating that ―we do not need to order the trial court to correct the certification because the record affirmatively demonstrates that [appellant] does not have the right to appeal‖ and noting that ―an appellate court can use its discretion to determine when it is appropriate to require a new certification . . .‖); Morgan v. State, 185 S.W.3d 535, 538 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006, pet. ref’d) (same); but see Menjivar v. State, 264 S.W.3d 137, 142 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (―[W]hen the certi | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Terry Holcomb, Sr. v. Waller County, Texas
green
2 sentences2026In arguing that Farias’s claim is based on or in response to Lartigue’s exercise of her right to petition, Lartigue relies on Garcia v. Semler, 663 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2022, no pet.); Holcomb v. Waller Cnty., 546 S.W.3d 833 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied); and Bibby v. Bibby, 634 S.W.3d 401 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2021, no pet.). 2026In arguing that Farias’s claim is based on or in response to Lartigue’s exercise of her right to petition, Lartigue relies on Garcia v. Semler, 663 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2022, no pet.); Holcomb v. Waller Cnty., 546 S.W.3d 833 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied); and Bibby v. Bibby, 634 S.W.3d 401 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2021, no pet.). | 2 | 2026–2026 |
Callaghan Ranch, Ltd. v. Killam
green
1 sentence2018Although the no evidence motion acknowledged Farias had alleged Juarez, Ramos, and Pro Builders “made a false representation of fact, made false promise or promise was made for the purpose of inducing [Farias] to enter a contract,” the motion stated Juarez, Ramos and Pro Builders “moves [sic] for summary judgment for the reason that Plaintiff has no-evidence to sustain a cause of action against them for Fraud.” Because the motion is general and conclusory and does not specifically challenge a particular element of Farias’s claim for fraud in a real estate -5- 04-17-00789-CV transaction, “the m | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Young v. State
green
1 sentence2011See Pena v. State, 323 S.W.3d 522, 526-27 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2010, no pet.) (stating that ―we do not need to order the trial court to correct the certification because the record affirmatively demonstrates that [appellant] does not have the right to appeal‖ and noting that ―an appellate court can use its discretion to determine when it is appropriate to require a new certification . . .‖); Morgan v. State, 185 S.W.3d 535, 538 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006, pet. ref’d) (same); but see Menjivar v. State, 264 S.W.3d 137, 142 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (―[W]hen the certi | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.