5 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Essenburg v. Dallas Countygreen2 sentences2013See Essenburg v. Dallas County, 988 S.W.2d 188, 189 (Tex.1998) (discussing presentment statute). 2013See Essenburg v. Dallas County, 988 S.W.2d 188, 189 (Tex. 1998) (discussing presentment statute). | 2 | 2 |
Lubbock County v. Trammel's Bail Bondsgreen1 sentence2013Lubbock Cnty. v. Trammel’s Lubbock Bail Bonds, 80 S.W.3d 580, 584 (Tex.2002); see also Bates v. Randall Cnty., 297 S.W.3d 828, 836 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2009, pet. denied) (explaining that purpose of subsection 89.004(b) “is to encourage the County to make legitimate efforts tp settle claims without incurring significant litigation expenses, while also providing a disincentive to claimants rejecting legitimate settlement offers”). | 1 | 1 |
Bates v. Randall Countygreen1 sentence2013Lubbock Cnty. v. Trammel’s Lubbock Bail Bonds, 80 S.W.3d 580, 584 (Tex.2002); see also Bates v. Randall Cnty., 297 S.W.3d 828, 836 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2009, pet. denied) (explaining that purpose of subsection 89.004(b) “is to encourage the County to make legitimate efforts tp settle claims without incurring significant litigation expenses, while also providing a disincentive to claimants rejecting legitimate settlement offers”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
De Checa v. Diagnostic Center Hospital, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015De Checa, 852 S.W.2d at 938-39 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Bowles v. Wade
green
1 sentence1998Wade, 913 S.W.2d at 650 . . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.