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 2009–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hubert v. Harte-Hanks Texas Newspapers, Inc.green2 sentences2010In Hubert v. Harte-Hanks Texas Newspapers, Inc., 652 S.W.2d at 550 , the only decision to consider whether a balancing test applied under section 552.102, a divided court of appeals held that it did not: Nothing in the language [of the PIA] indicates that ... the federal balancing test or the Industrial Foundation test should be employed in determining cases involving ‘information from personnel files.’ Nevertheless, this Court has determined, finally, that the Industrial Foundation test for information deemed confidential by law under [section 552.101] ... should apply also to [section 552.10 2010In Hubert v. Harte-Hanks Texas Newspapers, Inc., 652 S.W.2d at 550 , the only decision to consider whether a balancing test applied under section 552.102, a divided court of appeals held that it did not: Nothing in the language [of the PIA] indicates that ... the federal balancing test or the Industrial Foundation test should be employed in determining cases involving ‘information from personnel files.’ Nevertheless, this Court has determined, finally, that the Industrial Foundation test for information deemed confidential by law under [section 552.101] ... should apply also to [section 552.10 | 3 | 4 |
Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Mirandagreen2 sentences2020See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227 ; cf. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002) (noting TI’s purpose is to preserve status quo of litigation’s subject matter pending trial on merits and that to obtain TI, applicant must plead and prove “(1) a cause of action against defendant; (2) a probable right to the relief sought; and (3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim”). 2020See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227 ; cf. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002) (noting TI’s purpose is to preserve status quo of litigation’s subject matter pending trial on merits and that to obtain TI, applicant must plead and prove “(1) a cause of action against defendant; (2) a probable right to the relief sought; and (3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim”). | 1 | 1 |
Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co.green2 sentences2020See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227 ; cf. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002) (noting TI’s purpose is to preserve status quo of litigation’s subject matter pending trial on merits and that to obtain TI, applicant must plead and prove “(1) a cause of action against defendant; (2) a probable right to the relief sought; and (3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim”). 2020See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227 ; cf. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002) (noting TI’s purpose is to preserve status quo of litigation’s subject matter pending trial on merits and that to obtain TI, applicant must plead and prove “(1) a cause of action against defendant; (2) a probable right to the relief sought; and (3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim”). | 1 | 1 |
Whalen v. Roegreen2 sentences2009See id. at 599 . 2009See id. at 599 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Sawyer
green
2 sentences2015See Hubert v. Harte- Hanks Tex. Newspapers, Inc., 652 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. App. - Austin 1983, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Johnson v. Sawyer, 47 F.3d 716 (5th Cir. 1995). 2015See Hubert v. Harte- Hanks Tex. Newspapers, Inc., 652 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. App. - Austin 1983, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Johnson v. Sawyer, 47 F.3d 716 (5th Cir. 1995). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
IND. FOUNDATION, ETC. v. Texas Ind. Acc. Bd.
green
2 sentences2010Found., 540 S.W.2d at 685 . 2010Found., 540 S.W.2d at 685 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |