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 2 courts 1985–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Martens v. Lamkin Land and Cattle Companygreen1 sentence2026Abatement serves no purpose where “a judgment in the first suit would not foreclose all issues between [the parties].” Martens, 2025 Tex. Bus. 32, ¶51 (discussing Dolenz v. Cont’l Nat’l Bank of Fort Worth, 620 S.W.2d 572 (Tex. 1981)). | 1 | 1 |
Corea v. Bilekgreen2 sentences2013See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 cmt. c & illus. 7; see also Corea, 362 S.W.3d at 826 (placing burden on party opposing preclusion). 2013See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 cmt. c & illus. 7; see also Corea, 362 S.W.3d at 826 (placing burden on party opposing preclusion). | 1 | 1 |
John G. & Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation v. Dewhurstgreen1 sentence2013See John G. & Marie Stella Kenedy Mem’l Found., 90 S.W.3d at 288 . .The Restatement observes that the burden of establishing a change in facts sufficient to undermine a preclusion defense should fall on the party opposing the defense, at least in some cases. | 1 | 1 |
Horne v. Moodygreen2 sentences1985When a rule of law has been decided by the highest court of the state, that decision is generally accepted as binding precedent in the same or lower ranking courts when the same point is presented in a subsequent suit between different parties. 4 Steakley & Howell, Ruminations on Res Judicata, 28 S.W.L.J. 355 (1974); Swilley v. McCain, 374 S.W.2d 871, 875 (Tex.1964); Horne v. Moody, 146 S.W.2d 505, 509 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1940, writ dism’d). 1985When a rule of law has been decided by the highest court of the state, that decision is generally accepted as binding precedent in the same or lower ranking courts when the same point is presented in a subsequent suit between different parties. [4] Steakley & Howell, Ruminations *654 on Res Judicata, 28 S.W.L.J. 355 (1974); Swilley v. McCain, 374 S.W.2d 871, 875 (Tex.1964); Horne v. Moody, 146 S.W.2d 505, 509 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1940, writ dism'd). | 1 | 1 |
Swilley v. McCaingreen2 sentences1985When a rule of law has been decided by the highest court of the state, that decision is generally accepted as binding precedent in the same or lower ranking courts when the same point is presented in a subsequent suit between different parties. 4 Steakley & Howell, Ruminations on Res Judicata, 28 S.W.L.J. 355 (1974); Swilley v. McCain, 374 S.W.2d 871, 875 (Tex.1964); Horne v. Moody, 146 S.W.2d 505, 509 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1940, writ dism’d). 1985When a rule of law has been decided by the highest court of the state, that decision is generally accepted as binding precedent in the same or lower ranking courts when the same point is presented in a subsequent suit between different parties. [4] Steakley & Howell, Ruminations *654 on Res Judicata, 28 S.W.L.J. 355 (1974); Swilley v. McCain, 374 S.W.2d 871, 875 (Tex.1964); Horne v. Moody, 146 S.W.2d 505, 509 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1940, writ dism'd). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dolenz v. Continental National Bank of Fort Worth
green
1 sentence2026Abatement serves no purpose where “a judgment in the first suit would not foreclose all issues between [the parties].” Martens, 2025 Tex. Bus. 32, ¶51 (discussing Dolenz v. Cont’l Nat’l Bank of Fort Worth, 620 S.W.2d 572 (Tex. 1981)). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Taylor v. Sturgell
green
2 sentences2016Instead, the Supreme Court limited non-party preclusion to traditional and recognized exceptions, which it grouped into six categories: 15 (1) cases where the non-party has agreed to be bound by the decision; (2) cases where the non-party is in one of “a variety of pre-existing substantive legal relationship[s]” with a party; (3) cases where the non-party was adequately represented by a party; (4) cases where a non-party assumed control over the prior litigation; (5) cases where the non-party was a party to the original action but seeks to litigate the subsequent litigation through a proxy; or 2016Accordingly, the Supreme Court “disapproved] the doctrine of preclusion by ‘virtual representation.’” Id. at 885, 128 S.Ct. 2161 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Skil Corporation v. Millers Falls Company
green
1 sentence2015The doctrines of res 321, 327 n. 10 (5th Cir.2007). judicata, collateral estoppel, and law of the case come to mind.”); Skil Corp. v. Millers Falls Co., 541 F.2d 554 , 558 “Res judicata is appropriate if (1) (6th Cir.1976) (applying res judicata effect to decision from the parties are identical or in privity; the Seventh Circuit). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.