5 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Edgar v. Mite Corp.
green
2 sentences2017Co. v. Lopez, 156 S.W.3d 550 , 557 n.7 (Tex. 2004) (“The internal affairs doctrine is a conflict of laws principle which recognizes that only one State should have the authority to regulate a corporation’s internal affairs— matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders... .”) (quoting Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 645 , 102 S.Ct. 2629 , 73 L.Ed.2d 269 (1982)); In re Crown Castle Int’l Corp., 247 S.W.3d at 354 ; see also In re Skyport Glob. 2017Co. v. Lopez, 156 S.W.3d 550 , 557 n.7 (Tex. 2004) (“The internal affairs doctrine is a conflict of laws principle which recognizes that only one State should have the authority to regulate a corporation’s internal affairs— matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders... .”) (quoting Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 645 , 102 S.Ct. 2629 , 73 L.Ed.2d 269 (1982)); In re Crown Castle Int’l Corp., 247 S.W.3d at 354 ; see also In re Skyport Glob. | 5 | 2004–2017 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Lopez
green
1 sentence2017Co. v. Lopez, 156 S.W.3d 550 , 557 n.7 (Tex. 2004) (“The internal affairs doctrine is a conflict of laws principle which recognizes that only one State should have the authority to regulate a corporation’s internal affairs— matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders... .”) (quoting Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 645 , 102 S.Ct. 2629 , 73 L.Ed.2d 269 (1982)); In re Crown Castle Int’l Corp., 247 S.W.3d at 354 ; see also In re Skyport Glob. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In Re Crown Castle International Corp.
green
1 sentence2017Co. v. Lopez, 156 S.W.3d 550 , 557 n.7 (Tex. 2004) (“The internal affairs doctrine is a conflict of laws principle which recognizes that only one State should have the authority to regulate a corporation’s internal affairs— matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders... .”) (quoting Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 645 , 102 S.Ct. 2629 , 73 L.Ed.2d 269 (1982)); In re Crown Castle Int’l Corp., 247 S.W.3d at 354 ; see also In re Skyport Glob. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.