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 1 courts 1987–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mieth v. Ranchquest, Inc.green2 sentences2011Conquest Drilling Fluids, Inc., 137 S.W.3d at 308 (citing Mieth v. Ranchquest, Inc., 177 S.W.3d 296, 305 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.)). 2011Conquest Drilling Fluids, Inc., 137 S.W.3d at 308 (citing Mieth v. Ranchquest, Inc., 177 S.W.3d 296, 305 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.)).12 In its counterclaim, SPLR asserted that, after the adverse District rulings on their permit applications, SPLR and the Trust entered into an oral agreement whereby the Trust was permitted to drill three smaller wells in addition to the original well to compensate for the reduced volume allowed by the District and, if the Trust prevailed in litigation with the District, the Trust would "shut in" those three smaller wells and pump only the 390 | 2 | 2 |
Conquest Drilling Fluids, Inc. v. Tri-Flo International, Inc.green2 sentences2011Conquest Drilling Fluids, Inc., 137 S.W.3d at 308 (citing Mieth v. Ranchquest, Inc., 177 S.W.3d 296, 305 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.)). 2011Oral Agreement If an issue is properly pleaded and supported by some evidence, a party is entitled to have controlling fact questions submitted to the jury; Conquest Drilling Fluids, Inc. v. Tri-Flo International, Inc., 137 S.W.3d 299, 306 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 2004, no pet.) (citing Triplex Communications, Inc. v. Riley, 900 S.W.2d 716 (Tex. 1995)), and when the requested instruction may have produced a different outcome, failure to submit the instruction is reversible error. | 1 | 2 |
Murphy v. Seabarge, Ltd.green1 sentence2011"If there is any evidence of probative value to support the question, the trial court may not refuse to submit the issue to the jury." Murphy v. Seabarge, Ltd., 868 S.W.2d 929, 933 (Tex.App.-- Houston 1994, writ denied). 20 when the requested instruction may have produced a different outcome, failure to submit the instruction is reversible error. | 1 | 1 |
Calicult v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Calicult v. State , 503 S.W.2d 574, 576 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shupe v. Lingafelter
green
1 sentence2016Id. 15 Scarbrough’s requested instruction stated, “Attorneys have qualified immunity from a suit arising from their discretionary duties in and out of the courtroom in good faith within the scope of their legal representation of respected [sic] clients.” This proposed instruction required a “good faith” element that was negated by the jury’s finding that Scarbrough acted maliciously or with conscious indifference toward the Purser Family.11 Thus, the court’s declining to submit the instruction as worded was harmless. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Triplex Communications, Inc. v. Riley
green
1 sentence2011Oral Agreement If an issue is properly pleaded and supported by some evidence, a party is entitled to have controlling fact questions submitted to the jury; Conquest Drilling Fluids, Inc. v. Tri-Flo International, Inc., 137 S.W.3d 299, 306 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 2004, no pet.) (citing Triplex Communications, Inc. v. Riley, 900 S.W.2d 716 (Tex. 1995)), and when the requested instruction may have produced a different outcome, failure to submit the instruction is reversible error. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Boudreaux v. State
green
1 sentence1987Appellant’s third ground of error states: “The trial court erred in failing to include in its charge to the jury on punishment the instruction regarding good conduct time and parole mandated by section 4(a) of article 37.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.” While a majority of this court has held that inclusion of such an instruction in the charge is not reversible error, Boudreaux v. State, 723 S.W.2d 230 (Tex.App.—Beaumont, 1986), we have not held that failure to give the instruction is reversible error. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.