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.
38 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1924–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Amstadt v. United States Brass Corp.green2 sentences2011Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 652 (Tex. 1996). 2011Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp. , 919 S.W.2d 644, 652 (Tex. 1996) . | 7 | 7 |
Jones v. City of Houstongreen2 sentences2003"To meet this burden, the party relying on the doctrine is required to introduce into evidence both the prior judgment and pleadings from the prior suit." Jones v. City of Houston , 907 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied); see Cuellar v. City of San Antonio , 821 S.W.2d 250, 256 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1991, writ denied); Smithwick , 787 S.W.2d at 562 (party asserting collateral estoppel must introduce into evidence judgment and pleadings from prior suit or doctrine will not apply); Traweek v. Larkin , 708 S.W.2d 942, 945 (Tex. App.-Tyler 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ( 2002"To meet this burden, the party relying on the doctrine is required to introduce into evidence both the prior judgment and pleadings from the prior suit." Jones v. City of Houston , 907 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied); see Cuellar v. City of San Antonio , 821 S.W.2d 250, 256 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1991, writ denied); Smithwick , 787 S.W.2d at 562 (party asserting collateral estoppel must introduce into evidence judgment and pleadings from prior suit or doctrine will not apply); Traweek v. Larkin , 708 S.W.2d 942, 945 (Tex. App.-Tyler 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ( | 5 | 5 |
Scurlock Oil Co. v. Smithwickgreen2 sentences2003"To meet this burden, the party relying on the doctrine is required to introduce into evidence both the prior judgment and pleadings from the prior suit." Jones v. City of Houston , 907 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied); see Cuellar v. City of San Antonio , 821 S.W.2d 250, 256 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1991, writ denied); Smithwick , 787 S.W.2d at 562 (party asserting collateral estoppel must introduce into evidence judgment and pleadings from prior suit or doctrine will not apply); Traweek v. Larkin , 708 S.W.2d 942, 945 (Tex. App.-Tyler 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ( 2002"To meet this burden, the party relying on the doctrine is required to introduce into evidence both the prior judgment and pleadings from the prior suit." Jones v. City of Houston , 907 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied); see Cuellar v. City of San Antonio , 821 S.W.2d 250, 256 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1991, writ denied); Smithwick , 787 S.W.2d at 562 (party asserting collateral estoppel must introduce into evidence judgment and pleadings from prior suit or doctrine will not apply); Traweek v. Larkin , 708 S.W.2d 942, 945 (Tex. App.-Tyler 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ( | 5 | 5 |
Traweek v. Larkingreen2 sentences2003"To meet this burden, the party relying on the doctrine is required to introduce into evidence both the prior judgment and pleadings from the prior suit." Jones v. City of Houston , 907 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied); see Cuellar v. City of San Antonio , 821 S.W.2d 250, 256 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1991, writ denied); Smithwick , 787 S.W.2d at 562 (party asserting collateral estoppel must introduce into evidence judgment and pleadings from prior suit or doctrine will not apply); Traweek v. Larkin , 708 S.W.2d 942, 945 (Tex. App.-Tyler 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ( 2002"To meet this burden, the party relying on the doctrine is required to introduce into evidence both the prior judgment and pleadings from the prior suit." Jones v. City of Houston , 907 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied); see Cuellar v. City of San Antonio , 821 S.W.2d 250, 256 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1991, writ denied); Smithwick , 787 S.W.2d at 562 (party asserting collateral estoppel must introduce into evidence judgment and pleadings from prior suit or doctrine will not apply); Traweek v. Larkin , 708 S.W.2d 942, 945 (Tex. App.-Tyler 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ( | 4 | 4 |
Cuellar v. City of San Antoniogreen2 sentences2003"To meet this burden, the party relying on the doctrine is required to introduce into evidence both the prior judgment and pleadings from the prior suit." Jones v. City of Houston , 907 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied); see Cuellar v. City of San Antonio , 821 S.W.2d 250, 256 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1991, writ denied); Smithwick , 787 S.W.2d at 562 (party asserting collateral estoppel must introduce into evidence judgment and pleadings from prior suit or doctrine will not apply); Traweek v. Larkin , 708 S.W.2d 942, 945 (Tex. App.-Tyler 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ( 2002"To meet this burden, the party relying on the doctrine is required to introduce into evidence both the prior judgment and pleadings from the prior suit." Jones v. City of Houston , 907 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied); see Cuellar v. City of San Antonio , 821 S.W.2d 250, 256 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1991, writ denied); Smithwick , 787 S.W.2d at 562 (party asserting collateral estoppel must introduce into evidence judgment and pleadings from prior suit or doctrine will not apply); Traweek v. Larkin , 708 S.W.2d 942, 945 (Tex. App.-Tyler 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ( | 3 | 3 |
Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Nicholsgreen2 sentences2024Id. 3 While Jafar filed special exceptions to Beaches and Mehboob’s misappropriation counterclaim, he did so on other grounds: seeking to clarify the time-period involved, the type of mismanagement alleged, and the authority for anyone other than Mehboob to assert the claim. 2011Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Nichols, 819 S.W.2d 900, 907 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, writ denied). | 2 | 3 |
Sysco Food Services, Inc. v. Trapnellgreen2 sentences2011Sysco Food Servs. v. Trapnell, 890 S.W.2d 796, 801 (Tex. 1994). 2011Sysco Food Servs. v. Trapnell , 890 S.W.2d 796, 801 (Tex. 1994) . | 2 | 2 |
Texmarc Conveyor Co. v. Artsgreen2 sentences2008Texmarc Conveyor Co. v. Arts , 857 S.W.2d 743, 747 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.); Cotten v. Weatherford Bancshares, Inc. , 187 S.W.3d 687, 708-09 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied); see also Tex. R. 2004Texmarc Conveyor Co. v. Arts , 857 S.W.2d 743, 747 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
In Re K.S.green2 sentences2009In re K.S., 76 S.W.3d 36 , 43 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2002, no pet.) ( citing Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 652 (Tex. 1996)). 2008In re K.S., 76 S.W.3d 36, 43 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2002, no pet.) (citing Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 652 (Tex.1996)). | 1 | 5 |
Lang v. Leegreen1 sentence2025Storable Did Not Waive Privilege Waiver is an “intentional relinquishment of a known right or intentional conduct inconsistent with claiming that right.” Paxton v. City of Dallas, 509 S.W.3d 247, 263 (Tex. 2017). “[T]he burden of proof is on the party relying on the waiver.” Lang v. Lee, 777 S.W.2d 158, 164 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1989, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas v. City of Dallasgreen1 sentence2025Storable Did Not Waive Privilege Waiver is an “intentional relinquishment of a known right or intentional conduct inconsistent with claiming that right.” Paxton v. City of Dallas, 509 S.W.3d 247, 263 (Tex. 2017). “[T]he burden of proof is on the party relying on the waiver.” Lang v. Lee, 777 S.W.2d 158, 164 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1989, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
Tractebel Energy Marketing, Inc. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.green1 sentence2022See id. | 1 | 1 |
Turbines, Inc. v. Dardisgreen1 sentence2016The party relying on the doctrine must “‘so reduce’ the likelihood of other causes that the [factfinder] can reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence that the negligence, if any, lies at the defendant’s door.” Turbines, Inc. v. Dardis, 1 S.W.3d 726, 741 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Calabrian Corporation v. Alliance Specialty Chemicalsgreen2 sentences2015See id. 2015See id. | 1 | 1 |
Shapolsky v. Brewtongreen1 sentence2015Because the movant bears the burden of this burden, the party relying on the doctrine is required proof, all conflicts in the evidence are disregarded, evidence to introduce into evidence both the prior judgment and favorable to the nonmovant is taken as true, and all doubts as pleadings from the prior suit.” Jones v. City of Houston, 907 to the genuine issue of material fact are resolved in favor of S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ the nonmovant. | 1 | 1 |
First Nat. Bank of Amarillo v. Slaton Independent School Dist.green1 sentence2015Bank v. Slaton Independent School Dist., 58 S.W.2d 870, 875 (Tex.Civ.App. –Amarillo 1933, writ dism’d) (“The burden of proof is upon him who alleges authority; in the absence of proof no presumption of authority will be indulged.”); Mission Linen Supply, Inc. v. Sandy's Signals, Inc., 2- 07-014-CV, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 5968 *10; 2007 WL 2152070 (Tex. App.-- Fort Worth, July 26, 2007) (“the burden of proof is on the party relying on the doctrine of apparent authority to bind a principal to prove facts that will establish apparent authority.”).15 15 Amerigroup cites no authority holding that lac | 1 | 1 |
Lan Ngoc Nguyen v. Dinh Duc Nguyengreen1 sentence2013Nguyen v. Nguyen, 355 S.W.3d 82, 92 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. denied); Levine v. Maverick County Water Control & Improvement Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Risk Managers International, Inc. v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Risk Managers Int'l v. State, 858 S.W.2d 567, 570 (Tex.App.-Austin 1993, writ denied). 2009See Risk Managers Int'l v. State, 858 S.W.2d 567, 570 (Tex.App.-Austin 1993, writ denied). | 1 | 1 |
Cotten v. Weatherford Bancshares, Inc.green1 sentence2008Texmarc Conveyor Co. v. Arts , 857 S.W.2d 743, 747 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.); Cotten v. Weatherford Bancshares, Inc. , 187 S.W.3d 687, 708-09 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied); see also Tex. R. | 1 | 1 |
Shippers' Compress Co. v. Northern Assur. Co.green1 sentence2007Shippers’ Compress Co. v. N. Assurance Co. , 208 S.W. 939, 947 (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Contact Products, Inc. v. Dixico Inc.green1 sentence2003The cases cited by appellants in this vein either deal with mistakes of law, see Contact Prods., Inc. v. Dixico Inc., 672 S.W.2d 607, 609-10 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1984, no writ) (one party’s mistake regarding meaning of contractual term), or with unilateral mistake. | 1 | 1 |
Benson v. Wanda Petroleum Companygreen1 sentence1988See Benson v. Wanda Petroleum Co., 468 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex.1971). | 1 | 1 |
Ford v. Culbertsongreen2 sentences1981Ford v. Culberson, 158 Tex. 124, 138 , 308 S.W.2d 855, 865 (1958). 1981Ford v. Culberson, 158 Tex. 124, 138 , 308 S.W.2d 855, 865 (1958). | 1 | 1 |
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Amburngreen1 sentence1976Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Amburn, 380 S.W.2d 727, 729 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1964, writ dism’d). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bass v. Champion International Corp.green2 sentences2003"To meet this burden, the party relying on the doctrine is required to introduce into evidence both the prior judgment and pleadings from the prior suit." Jones v. City of Houston , 907 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied); see Cuellar v. City of San Antonio , 821 S.W.2d 250, 256 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1991, writ denied); Smithwick , 787 S.W.2d at 562 (party asserting collateral estoppel must introduce into evidence judgment and pleadings from prior suit or doctrine will not apply); Traweek v. Larkin , 708 S.W.2d 942, 945 (Tex. App.-Tyler 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ( 2002"To meet this burden, the party relying on the doctrine is required to introduce into evidence both the prior judgment and pleadings from the prior suit." Jones v. City of Houston , 907 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied); see Cuellar v. City of San Antonio , 821 S.W.2d 250, 256 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1991, writ denied); Smithwick , 787 S.W.2d at 562 (party asserting collateral estoppel must introduce into evidence judgment and pleadings from prior suit or doctrine will not apply); Traweek v. Larkin , 708 S.W.2d 942, 945 (Tex. App.-Tyler 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ( | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re General Electric Capital Corporation
green
2 sentences2018Id. at 411 . 2018Id. at 411 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
G.T. Leach Builders, LLC v. Sapphire V.P., Lp
green
1 sentence2018Id. at 515 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
City of Houston v. Church
green
1 sentence2016“Where the evidence shows that an accident may have happened as a result of two or more causes, and it is not more reasonably probable that it was due to the negligence of the defendant than to any other cause, the rule of res ipsa loquitur does not apply.” City of Houston, 554 S.W.2d at 243–44. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Woods v. William M. Mercer, Inc.
green
1 sentence1996Id. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
R.K. v. Ramirez
green
2 sentences1994Id. 1994Id. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Holland v. Blanchard green | 1 | 1935–1935 |
| Sheffield Car Co. v. Constantine Hydraulic Co. green | 1 | 1924–1924 |
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.