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 1993–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rosenthal v. Ottisgreen1 sentence2018The court further determined that the trial court retains jurisdiction to decide a timely filed fees request under section 21.019 “as in any other case in which an unadjudicated claim remains pending after dismissal.” Id. at 528. | 1 | 1 |
Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Lindsaygreen1 sentence2008See id. | 1 | 1 |
Rexrode v. Bazargreen1 sentence2007Rexrode v. Bazar, 937 S.W.2d 614, 619 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1997, no writ); see Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado, 892 S.W.2d 853, 854-55 (Tex.1995) (claims adjudicated before nonsuit are dismissed with prejudice). | 1 | 1 |
Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvaradogreen1 sentence2007Rexrode v. Bazar, 937 S.W.2d 614, 619 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1997, no writ); see Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado, 892 S.W.2d 853, 854-55 (Tex.1995) (claims adjudicated before nonsuit are dismissed with prejudice). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Landrygreen1 sentence1993See State v. Landry, 793 S.W.2d 281 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, orig. proceeding); Eppoleto v. Bournias, 764 S.W.2d 284 (Tex.App.—Waco 1988, orig. proceeding) (suggesting that the trial court may dismiss the condemnation proceeding but reserve jurisdiction over the question of § 21.-019(b) attorney’s fees and expenses). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McNally v. Guevara
green
1 sentence2022App. P. 27.2, or to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.” Id. 5 Although we and other courts of appeals have held that a Rule 27.2 abatement is not available when an unadjudicated claim for attorney’s fees is contested and its resolution might involve an evidentiary proceeding and other rulings, 6 the parties in this case assert they have reached “a stipulated resolution of the attorney’s fees issue.” That stipulation will make the trial court’s rendition of judgment on the attorney’s fees claim ministerial or perfunctory and suitable for resolution on abatement of this appeal to make | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Eppoleto v. Bournias
green
1 sentence1993See State v. Landry, 793 S.W.2d 281 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, orig. proceeding); Eppoleto v. Bournias, 764 S.W.2d 284 (Tex.App.—Waco 1988, orig. proceeding) (suggesting that the trial court may dismiss the condemnation proceeding but reserve jurisdiction over the question of § 21.-019(b) attorney’s fees and expenses). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.