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 2005–2005 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burch v. City of San Antoniogreen1 sentence2005No. 1, 847 S.W.2d 424, 425-27 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1993, no writ); Burch v. City of San Antonio, 508 S.W.2d 653, 655 (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Mercier v. MidTexas Pipeline Co.green1 sentence2005To meet its summary judgment burden regarding its right to condemn the property, the City proffered the following summary judgment evidence: (1) the Austin city charter, establishing that the City is a municipality that had eminent domain power under section 251.001 of the local government code. 5 Mercier v. MidTexas Pipeline Co., 28 S.W.3d 712, 719-20 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2000), overruled on other grounds by Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co., 141 S.W.3d 172 (Tex. 2004); Teco Pipeline, 985 S.W.2d at 565 ; Saunders v. Titus County Fresh Water Supply Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Saunders v. Titus County Fresh Water Supply District No. 1green1 sentence2005No. 1, 847 S.W.2d 424, 425-27 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1993, no writ); Burch v. City of San Antonio, 508 S.W.2d 653, 655 (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roberts v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.
green
2 sentences2005It attempts to invoke the principle that legislative declarations of public use are entitled to deference, see , e.g. , Maher , 354 S.W.2d at 925 ; Higginbotham , 143 S.W.2d at 85 , pointing to three sets of legislative enactments. 2005It attempts to invoke the principle that legislative declarations of public use are entitled to deference, see, e.g., Maher, 354 S.W.2d at 925 ; Higginbotham, 143 S.W.2d at 85 , pointing to three sets of legislative enactments. | 4 | 2005–2005 |
Maher v. Lasater
green
2 sentences2005It attempts to invoke the principle that legislative declarations of public use are entitled to deference, see , e.g. , Maher , 354 S.W.2d at 925 ; Higginbotham , 143 S.W.2d at 85 , pointing to three sets of legislative enactments. 2005It attempts to invoke the principle that legislative declarations of public use are entitled to deference, see, e.g., Maher, 354 S.W.2d at 925 ; Higginbotham, 143 S.W.2d at 85 , pointing to three sets of legislative enactments. | 4 | 2005–2005 |
Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co.
green
1 sentence2005To meet its summary judgment burden regarding its right to condemn the property, the City proffered the following summary judgment evidence: (1) the Austin city charter, establishing that the City is a municipality that had eminent domain power under section 251.001 of the local government code. 5 Mercier v. MidTexas Pipeline Co., 28 S.W.3d 712, 719-20 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2000), overruled on other grounds by Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co., 141 S.W.3d 172 (Tex. 2004); Teco Pipeline, 985 S.W.2d at 565 ; Saunders v. Titus County Fresh Water Supply Dist. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Anderson v. Teco Pipeline Co.
green
1 sentence2005To meet its summary judgment burden regarding its right to condemn the property, the City proffered the following summary judgment evidence: (1) the Austin city charter, establishing that the City is a municipality that had eminent domain power under section 251.001 of the local government code. 5 Mercier v. MidTexas Pipeline Co., 28 S.W.3d 712, 719-20 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2000), overruled on other grounds by Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co., 141 S.W.3d 172 (Tex. 2004); Teco Pipeline, 985 S.W.2d at 565 ; Saunders v. Titus County Fresh Water Supply Dist. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.