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 2007–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Eureste v. Commission for Lawyer Disciplinegreen2 sentences2022See Eureste, 76 S.W.3d at 202 (discussed evidence that addressed only six of the twelve factors in concluding trial court had considered the relevant factors outlined in Rule 3.10); see also Minnick v. State Bar of Tex., 790 S.W.2d 87, 93 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990, writ denied) (concluding trial court was within its discretion in ordering disbarment when some of the Rule 3 On August 28, 2018, the Texas Supreme Court deleted the factors listed in Rule 3.10 and replaced its substance by Part XV. 2011See Eureste, 76 S.W.3d at 202 (discussed evidence that addressed only six of the twelve factors in concluding the trial court had considered the relevant factors outlined in rule 3.10); see also Minnick, 790 S.W.2d at 93 (concluding the trial court was within its discretion in ordering disbarment, the appellate court noted that some of the 3.10 factors were the subject of disputed evidence, while others appeared to weigh in the attorney’s favor). | 2 | 2 |
Minnick v. State Bar of Texasgreen2 sentences2022See Eureste, 76 S.W.3d at 202 (discussed evidence that addressed only six of the twelve factors in concluding trial court had considered the relevant factors outlined in Rule 3.10); see also Minnick v. State Bar of Tex., 790 S.W.2d 87, 93 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990, writ denied) (concluding trial court was within its discretion in ordering disbarment when some of the Rule 3 On August 28, 2018, the Texas Supreme Court deleted the factors listed in Rule 3.10 and replaced its substance by Part XV. 2011See Eureste, 76 S.W.3d at 202 (discussed evidence that addressed only six of the twelve factors in concluding the trial court had considered the relevant factors outlined in rule 3.10); see also Minnick, 790 S.W.2d at 93 (concluding the trial court was within its discretion in ordering disbarment, the appellate court noted that some of the 3.10 factors were the subject of disputed evidence, while others appeared to weigh in the attorney’s favor). | 2 | 2 |
cluster 2358green2 sentences2011Perdue, 130 S.Ct. at 1673. 2011Perdue , 130 S. Ct. at 1673. | 2 | 2 |
Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v. Coastal Refining & Marketing, Inc.green1 sentence2007See Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v. Coastal Ref. & Mktg., Inc. , 754 S.W.2d 764, 767 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, writ denied); Goad v. Goad, 768 S.W.2d 356, 359 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1989, writ denied) (noting that when party's counsel has personal knowledge through representing client, counsel is qualified at trial to give expert opinion testimony concerning attorney's fees incurred in case). | 1 | 1 |
Goad v. Goadgreen1 sentence2007See Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v. Coastal Ref. & Mktg., Inc. , 754 S.W.2d 764, 767 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, writ denied); Goad v. Goad, 768 S.W.2d 356, 359 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1989, writ denied) (noting that when party's counsel has personal knowledge through representing client, counsel is qualified at trial to give expert opinion testimony concerning attorney's fees incurred in case). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
cluster 315529
green
2 sentences2011Once the lodestar amount is calculated, the court may adjust it upward or downward based on the twelve factors set forth in Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 , 717-19 (5th Cir.1974). 1 *109 The lodestar amount is presumed to be a reasonable attorneys’ fee. 2011Once the lodestar amount is calculated, the court may adjust it upward or downward based on the twelve factors set forth in Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 , 717 – 19 (5th Cir. 1974). [1] The lodestar amount is presumed to be a reasonable attorneys’ fee. | 3 | 2007–2011 |
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.