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.
37 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp. Ex Rel. Sunbelt Federal Savingsgreen2 sentences2023The well-established policies behind the doctrine of res judicata “reflect the need to bring all litigation to an end, prevent vexatious litigation, maintain stability of court decisions, promote judicial economy, and prevent double recovery.” Barr, 837 S.W.2d at 629 . 2022Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 652 (Tex. 1996). . . . arbitrator has reached a decision by “corruption, fraud, or other undue means.” 13 For res judicata to apply, the following elements must be present: (1) a prior final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) the same parties or those in privity with them, and (3) a second action based on the same claims as were raised or could have been raised in the first action. [Id.] The policies behind this doctrine “reflect the need to bring all litigation to an end, prevent vexatious litigation, maintain stabilit | 7 | 28 |
Amstadt v. United States Brass Corp.green2 sentences2022Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 652 (Tex. 1996). . . . arbitrator has reached a decision by “corruption, fraud, or other undue means.” 13 For res judicata to apply, the following elements must be present: (1) a prior final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) the same parties or those in privity with them, and (3) a second action based on the same claims as were raised or could have been raised in the first action. [Id.] The policies behind this doctrine “reflect the need to bring all litigation to an end, prevent vexatious litigation, maintain stabilit 2016The elements required to establish res judicata are “(1) a prior final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) identity of parties or those in privity with them, and (3) a second action based on the same claims that were raised or could have been raised [out of the same subject matter] in the first action.” Amstadt v. U. S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 652 (Tex. 1996). | 3 | 6 |
Apex Towing Co. v. Tolingreen2 sentences2010See Apex Towing Co. v. Tolin, 41 S.W.3d 118, 122 (Tex. 2001) (“[W]ithout re-examining whether the policy reasons behind the tolling rule apply in each legal-malpractice case matching the Hughes paradigm, courts should simply apply the Hughes tolling rule to the category of legal-malpractice cases encompassed within its definition.”). 2010See Apex Towing Co. v. Tolin , 41 S.W.3d 118, 122 (Tex. 2001) ("[W]ithout re-examining whether the policy reasons behind the tolling rule apply in each legal-malpractice case matching the Hughes paradigm, courts should simply apply the Hughes tolling rule to the category of legal-malpractice cases encompassed within its definition."). | 2 | 2 |
Engelman Irrigation District v. Shields Bros., Inc.green1 sentence2019Engelman Irrigation Dist. v. Shields Bros., Inc., 514 S.W.3d 746, 750 (Tex. 2017). | 1 | 1 |
Welch v. Hrabargreen1 sentence2006Welch v. Hrabar , 110 S.W.3d 601, 609 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gracia v. RC Cola-7-Up Bottling Co.
green
1 sentence2014“The policies behind the doctrine reflect the need to bring all litigation to an end, prevent vexatious litigation, maintain stability of court decisions, promote judicial economy, and prevent double recovery.” Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Kizer v. Meyer, Lytton, Alen & Whitaker, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Henry v. Chubb Lloyds Insurance Co. of Texas
green
2 sentences2000Barr, 837 S.W.2d at 629 ; Henry, 895 S.W.2d at 812-13 ; Zollie Steakley & Weldon U. Howell, Jr., Ruminations on Res Judicata, 28 Sw.L.J. 355, 358-59 (1974). 2000Barr, 837 S.W.2d at 629 ; Henry, 895 S.W.2d at 812-13 ; Zollie Steakley & Weldon U. Howell, Jr., Ruminations on Res Judicata, 28 Sw.L.J. 355, 358-59 (1974). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.