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.
31 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1947–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State & County Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Millergreen2 sentences2004Co. v. Miller, 52 S.W.3d 693, 696 (Tex.2001) (recognizing that the transactional approach to res judicata requires a defendant to bring *655 as a counterclaim any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's suit). 12 . 2003Co. v. Miller , 52 S.W.3d 693, 696 (Tex. 2001) (recognizing that the transactional approach to res judicata requires a defendant to bring as a counterclaim any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s suit). [12] See Tex. R. | 2 | 8 |
In re J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.green2 sentences2022Hunt Transport, Inc., 492 S.W.3d 287, 294 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). 3 Id. at 292 . 4 Id. 6 party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction[.]5 In J.B. 2022Hunt Transport, Inc., 492 S.W.3d 287, 294 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). 3 Id. at 292 . 4 Id. 6 party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction[.]5 In J.B. | 2 | 2 |
Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp. Ex Rel. Sunbelt Federal Savingsgreen2 sentences2025Id. 2014Miller, 52 S.W.3d at 696 ; Barr, 837 S.W.2d at 630 . | 1 | 9 |
Griffin v. Holiday Inns of Americagreen2 sentences1986This rule requires a pleading to assert as a counterclaim any claim against the opposing party "if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim...." Decisions under this rule throw little light on the problem of determining what is "the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim." The only pertinent decision of the Supreme Court of Texas is Griffin v. Holiday Inns of America, 496 S.W.2d 535, 539 (Tex.1973), which indicates that the compulsory counterclaim rule is broader than the rule of res judi 1986This rule requires a pleading to assert as a counterclaim any claim against the opposing party “if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim....” Decisions under this rule throw little light on the problem of determining what is “the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim.” The only pertinent decision of the Supreme Court of Texas is Griffin v. Holiday Inns of America, 496 S.W.2d 535, 539 (Tex.1973), which indicates that the compulsory counterclaim rule is broader than the rule of res judi | 1 | 2 |
Baker Hughes, Inc. v. KECO R. & D., INC.green1 sentence2002Co. v. Cates, 927 S.W.2d 623, 626 (Tex. 1996) (appellate court should consider grounds for summary judgment on which trial court did not rule in the interest of judicial economy); see also Baker Hughes, Inc. v. Keco R. & D., Inc., 12 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 1999) (appellate court should consider all summary judgment grounds presented to trial court, even those denied or in separate motion). 1 AA pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim within the jurisdiction of the court, not the subject of a pending action, which at the time of filing the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, i | 1 | 1 |
Cincinnati Life Insurance Co. v. Catesgreen1 sentence2002Co. v. Cates, 927 S.W.2d 623, 626 (Tex. 1996) (appellate court should consider grounds for summary judgment on which trial court did not rule in the interest of judicial economy); see also Baker Hughes, Inc. v. Keco R. & D., Inc., 12 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 1999) (appellate court should consider all summary judgment grounds presented to trial court, even those denied or in separate motion). 1 AA pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim within the jurisdiction of the court, not the subject of a pending action, which at the time of filing the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, i | 1 | 1 |
Wyatt v. Shaw Plumbing Co.green1 sentence1998Rule 97(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part: [a] pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim within the jurisdiction of the court, not the subject of a pending action which at the time of filing the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction!.] “A counterclaim is compulsory if: (1) it is within the jurisdiction of the court; (2) it is n | 1 | 1 |
Bailey v. Travisgreen1 sentence1988See Bailey v. Travis, 622 S.W.2d 143 (Tex.Civ.App.—Eastland 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.). | 1 | 1 |
Nelms v. C. B. Delhomme, Inc.green1 sentence1981See Nelms, supra. Associated Popcorn further urges that abatement lies in the interest of public policy, to avoid a multiplicity of suits. | 1 | 1 |
Carter v. Waltongreen1 sentence1977Carter v. Walton, 469 S.W.2d 462, 467 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1971, no writ). *486 Tex.R.Civ.P. 97(a) (1977), concerning compulsory counterclaims, provides: “A pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim within the jurisdiction of the court, not the subject of a pending action, which at the time of filing the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction; | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lovato v. Austin Nursing Center, Inc.
green
2 sentences2010On the other hand, rule 97(b) provides that: "A pleading may state as a counterclaim any claim against an opposing party whether or not arising out of the *189 transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim." Id. at R. 97(b). 2010On the other hand, rule 97(b) provides that: "A pleading may state as a counterclaim any claim against an opposing party whether or not arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim." Id. at R. 97(b). | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.
red
1 sentence2026When, as here, the finality of an order is unclear and we must turn to the record, “if the record reveals the existence of parties or claims not mentioned in the order, the order is not final.” Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205–06. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
United States v. National City Bank of New York
green
1 sentence2015See also: Clark v. Baines, 84 P. 3d 245 - Wash: Supreme Court 2004 Page 77 of 89 AFFIDAVIT OF COUNTERCOMPLAINT “...where any state proceeds against a private individual in a judicial forum it is well settled that the state, county, municipality, etc. waives any immunity to counters, cross claims and complaints, by direct or collateral means regarding the matters involved.” --Luckenback v. The Thekla, 295 F 1020, 226 U.S. 328 ; Lyders v. Lund, 32 F2d 308; Dexter v. Kunglig J., 43 F2d 705, 282 US 896 ; U.S. v. N.C.B.N.Y., 83 F2d 236, 106 ALR 1235 , affirmed; Russia v. BTC, 4 F Supp 417 , 299 U.S | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State of Russia v. Bankers Trust Co.
green
1 sentence2015See also: Clark v. Baines, 84 P. 3d 245 - Wash: Supreme Court 2004 Page 77 of 89 AFFIDAVIT OF COUNTERCOMPLAINT “...where any state proceeds against a private individual in a judicial forum it is well settled that the state, county, municipality, etc. waives any immunity to counters, cross claims and complaints, by direct or collateral means regarding the matters involved.” --Luckenback v. The Thekla, 295 F 1020, 226 U.S. 328 ; Lyders v. Lund, 32 F2d 308; Dexter v. Kunglig J., 43 F2d 705, 282 US 896 ; U.S. v. N.C.B.N.Y., 83 F2d 236, 106 ALR 1235 , affirmed; Russia v. BTC, 4 F Supp 417 , 299 U.S | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Thomas v. Allen
green
1 sentence2015A party defending a claim must bring as a counterclaim any claim that "arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim...." TEX.R.CIV.P. 97. [ 837 S.W.2d 631 ] The Restatement of Judgments also takes the transactional approach to claims preclusion. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Clark v. Baines
green
1 sentence2015See also: Clark v. Baines, 84 P. 3d 245 - Wash: Supreme Court 2004 Page 77 of 89 AFFIDAVIT OF COUNTERCOMPLAINT “...where any state proceeds against a private individual in a judicial forum it is well settled that the state, county, municipality, etc. waives any immunity to counters, cross claims and complaints, by direct or collateral means regarding the matters involved.” --Luckenback v. The Thekla, 295 F 1020, 226 U.S. 328 ; Lyders v. Lund, 32 F2d 308; Dexter v. Kunglig J., 43 F2d 705, 282 US 896 ; U.S. v. N.C.B.N.Y., 83 F2d 236, 106 ALR 1235 , affirmed; Russia v. BTC, 4 F Supp 417 , 299 U.S | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Gugenhine v. Gerk
green
1 sentence2015See also: Clark v. Baines, 84 P. 3d 245 - Wash: Supreme Court 2004 Page 77 of 89 AFFIDAVIT OF COUNTERCOMPLAINT “...where any state proceeds against a private individual in a judicial forum it is well settled that the state, county, municipality, etc. waives any immunity to counters, cross claims and complaints, by direct or collateral means regarding the matters involved.” --Luckenback v. The Thekla, 295 F 1020, 226 U.S. 328 ; Lyders v. Lund, 32 F2d 308; Dexter v. Kunglig J., 43 F2d 705, 282 US 896 ; U.S. v. N.C.B.N.Y., 83 F2d 236, 106 ALR 1235 , affirmed; Russia v. BTC, 4 F Supp 417 , 299 U.S | 1 | 2015–2015 |
McGuire v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. of New York
green
1 sentence1979McGuire v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. of New York, 431 S.W.2d 347 (Tex.1968); Pierce v. Reynolds, 160 Tex. 198 , 329 S.W.2d 76 (1959); Hamilton v. Hamilton, 154 Tex. 511 , 280 S.W.2d 588 (1955). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Pierce v. Reynolds
green
2 sentences1979McGuire v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. of New York, 431 S.W.2d 347 (Tex.1968); Pierce v. Reynolds, 160 Tex. 198 , 329 S.W.2d 76 (1959); Hamilton v. Hamilton, 154 Tex. 511 , 280 S.W.2d 588 (1955). 1979McGuire v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. of New York, 431 S.W.2d 347 (Tex.1968); Pierce v. Reynolds, 160 Tex. 198 , 329 S.W.2d 76 (1959); Hamilton v. Hamilton, 154 Tex. 511 , 280 S.W.2d 588 (1955). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Hamilton v. Hamilton
green
2 sentences1979McGuire v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. of New York, 431 S.W.2d 347 (Tex.1968); Pierce v. Reynolds, 160 Tex. 198 , 329 S.W.2d 76 (1959); Hamilton v. Hamilton, 154 Tex. 511 , 280 S.W.2d 588 (1955). 1979McGuire v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. of New York, 431 S.W.2d 347 (Tex.1968); Pierce v. Reynolds, 160 Tex. 198 , 329 S.W.2d 76 (1959); Hamilton v. Hamilton, 154 Tex. 511 , 280 S.W.2d 588 (1955). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Harris v. Jones
green
1 sentence1977Griffin v. Holiday Inns of America, 496 S.W.2d 535 (Tex.Sup.1973); Harris v. Jones, 404 S.W.2d 349 (Tex.Civ.App.—Eastland 1966, writ ref’d). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Heights Funeral Home v. McClain
green
1 sentence1967A pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim within the jurisdiction of the court, not the subject of a pending action, which at the time of filing the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.” It is stated in Heights Funeral Home v. McClain, Tex.Civ.App., 288 S.W.2d 839 , n. r. e., as follows: “(1, 2) The rule just quoted contemplates situations where t | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Moore v. Ferrier
neutral
1 sentence1947Art. 2017].” Moore v. Ferrier, supra. So it is clear that no section of Rule 97 prohibited the plaintiff herein from having urged by way of counterclaim in the former suit his claim for damages under the sequestration bond, or his claim for damages arising out of a common-law tort by reason of wrongful sequestration. | 1 | 1947–1947 |
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.