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.
182 Texas opinions name it 4 courts 1987–2026 15 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 |
|---|---|---|
Liberty National Fire Insurance Co. v. Akingreen2 sentences2022Co. v. Akin, 927 S.W.2d 627, 630 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding)). 2012Co. v. Akin , 927 S.W.2d 627, 630 (Tex. 1996) (“To satisfy the clear abuse of discretion standard, the relator must show ‘that the trial court could reasonably have reached only one decision.’”) (quoting Walker , 827 S.W.2d at 840 ). | 72 | 73 |
MacGregor v. Richgreen2 sentences2026Standard of Review “We review a dismissal for want of prosecution under a clear abuse of discretion standard; the central issue is whether the plaintiff[] exercised reasonable diligence.” MacGregor v. Rich, 941 S.W.2d 74, 75 (Tex. 1997) (per curiam). 2026Standard of Review “We review a dismissal for want of prosecution under a clear abuse of discretion standard; the central issue is whether the plaintiff[] exercised reasonable diligence.” MacGregor v. Rich, 941 S.W.2d 74, 75 (Tex. 1997) (per curiam). | 51 | 51 |
Walker v. Packergreen2 sentences2020ANALYSIS “We review a petition for writ of mandamus under a clear abuse of discretion standard.” In re Dyer Custom Installation, Inc., 133 S.W.3d 878, 880 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2004, orig. proceeding) (citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)). 2020To satisfy the clear abuse of discretion standard, the relator must show “the trial court could reasonably have reached only one decision.” Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). | 16 | 89 |
State v. Rotellogreen2 sentences2025MacGregor v. Rich, 941 S.W.2d 74, 75 (Tex. 1997); State v. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d 507 , 508–09 (Tex. 1984); Fox v. Wardy, 234 S.W.3d 30, 32 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, pet. dism’d w.o.j.); Dick Poe Motors, Inc., v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 169 S.W.3d 478, 484 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, no pet.); Garcia v. Barreiro, 115 S.W.3d 271, 275 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi, 2003, no pet.). 2015MacGregor v. Rich, 941 S.W.2d 74, 75 (Tex. 1997); State v. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d 507 , 508–09 (Tex. 1984); Fox v. Wardy, 234 S.W.3d 30, 32 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, pet. dism’d w.o.j.); Dick Poe Motors, Inc., v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 169 S.W.3d 478, 484 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, no pet.); Garcia v. Barreiro, 115 S.W.3d 271, 275 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi, 2003, no pet.). | 10 | 19 |
Fox v. Wardygreen2 sentences2025MacGregor v. Rich, 941 S.W.2d 74, 75 (Tex. 1997); State v. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d 507 , 508–09 (Tex. 1984); Fox v. Wardy, 234 S.W.3d 30, 32 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, pet. dism’d w.o.j.); Dick Poe Motors, Inc., v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 169 S.W.3d 478, 484 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, no pet.); Garcia v. Barreiro, 115 S.W.3d 271, 275 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi, 2003, no pet.). 2015MacGregor v. Rich, 941 S.W.2d 74, 75 (Tex. 1997); State v. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d 507 , 508–09 (Tex. 1984); Fox v. Wardy, 234 S.W.3d 30, 32 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, pet. dism’d w.o.j.); Dick Poe Motors, Inc., v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 169 S.W.3d 478, 484 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, no pet.); Garcia v. Barreiro, 115 S.W.3d 271, 275 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi, 2003, no pet.). | 10 | 10 |
Dick Poe Motors, Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.green2 sentences2025MacGregor v. Rich, 941 S.W.2d 74, 75 (Tex. 1997); State v. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d 507 , 508–09 (Tex. 1984); Fox v. Wardy, 234 S.W.3d 30, 32 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, pet. dism’d w.o.j.); Dick Poe Motors, Inc., v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 169 S.W.3d 478, 484 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, no pet.); Garcia v. Barreiro, 115 S.W.3d 271, 275 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi, 2003, no pet.). 2015MacGregor v. Rich, 941 S.W.2d 74, 75 (Tex. 1997); State v. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d 507 , 508–09 (Tex. 1984); Fox v. Wardy, 234 S.W.3d 30, 32 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, pet. dism’d w.o.j.); Dick Poe Motors, Inc., v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 169 S.W.3d 478, 484 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, no pet.); Garcia v. Barreiro, 115 S.W.3d 271, 275 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi, 2003, no pet.). | 9 | 9 |
Bevil v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2010See State v. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d 507, 509 (Tex.1984), quoting Bevil v. Johnson, 157 Tex. 621 , 307 S.W.2d 85, 87 (1957); Johnson v. Hawkins, 255 S.W.3d 394, 397 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, pet. denied); Hung v. Bullock, 180 S.W.3d 931, 932 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, no pet.); Herrera, 281 S.W.3d at 6 . 2010See State v. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d 507, 509 (Tex.1984), quoting Bevil v. Johnson, 157 Tex. 621 , 307 S.W.2d 85, 87 (1957); Johnson v. Hawkins, 255 S.W.3d 394, 397 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, pet. denied); Hung v. Bullock, 180 S.W.3d 931, 932 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, no pet.); Herrera, 281 S.W.3d at 6 . | 5 | 8 |
Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venturegreen2 sentences2010Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150, 161 (Tex. 2004). 2008Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture , 145 S.W.3d at 161 ; Hernandez v. Heldenfels , 374 S.W.2d 196, 202 (Tex. 1963). | 4 | 6 |
Clark v. Yarbroughgreen2 sentences2026Similarly, “[a] trial court’s denial of a reinstatement motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and a reviewing court will not disturb it absent a showing of abuse.” Ransom, 553 S.W.3d at 93 (quoting Clark v. Yarbrough, 900 S.W.2d 406, 409 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1995, writ denied)). 2026Similarly, “[a] trial court’s denial of a reinstatement motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and a reviewing court will not disturb it absent a showing of abuse.” Ransom, 553 S.W.3d at 93 (quoting Clark v. Yarbrough, 900 S.W.2d 406, 409 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1995, writ denied)). | 4 | 4 |
Veterans' Land Board of Texas v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2026“We review a dismissal for want of prosecution under a clear abuse of discretion standard; the central issue is whether the plaintiffs exercised reasonable diligence.” MacGregor v. Rich, 941 S.W.2d 74, 75 (Tex. 1997) (per curiam) (citing Veterans’ Land Bd. v. Williams, 543 S.W.2d 89, 90 (Tex. 1976) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding)). 2020“We review a dismissal for want of prosecution under a clear abuse of discretion standard; the central issue is whether the plaintiffs exercised reasonable diligence.” MacGregor v. Rich, 941 S.W.3d 74 , 75 (Tex. 1997) (per curiam) (citing Veterans’ Land Bd. v. Williams, 543 S.W.2d 89, 90 (Tex. 1976) (per curiam)). | 3 | 3 |
Shu Yung Hung v. Bullockgreen2 sentences2010See State v. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d 507, 509 (Tex. 1984), quoting Bevil v. Johnson, 157 Tex. 621 , 307 S.W.2d 85, 87 (1957); Johnson v. Hawkins, 255 S.W.3d 394, 397 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2008, pet. denied); Hung v. Bullock, 180 S.W.3d 931, 932 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2006, no pet.); Herrera, 281 S.W.3d at 6 . 2010See State v. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d 507, 509 (Tex.1984), quoting Bevil v. Johnson, 157 Tex. 621 , 307 S.W.2d 85, 87 (1957); Johnson v. Hawkins, 255 S.W.3d 394, 397 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, pet. denied); Hung v. Bullock, 180 S.W.3d 931, 932 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, no pet.); Herrera, 281 S.W.3d at 6 . | 3 | 3 |
Herrera v. Riveragreen2 sentences2010See State v. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d 507, 508-09 (Tex.1984); Fox v. Wardy, 234 S.W.3d 30, 32 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2007, pet. dism’d w.o.j.); Dick Poe Motors, Inc. v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp., 169 S.W.3d 478, 484 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2005, no pet.); Herrera v. Rivera, 281 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2005, no pet.); Fox v. Wardy, 225 S.W.3d 198, 199 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2005, pet. denied) (“The decision to dismiss a case for want of prosecution rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and can be disturbed on review only if it amounted to a clear abuse of discretion.”). 2010See State v. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d 507, 509 (Tex.1984), quoting Bevil v. Johnson, 157 Tex. 621 , 307 S.W.2d 85, 87 (1957); Johnson v. Hawkins, 255 S.W.3d 394, 397 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, pet. denied); Hung v. Bullock, 180 S.W.3d 931, 932 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, no pet.); Herrera, 281 S.W.3d at 6 . | 3 | 3 |
Johnson v. Hawkinsgreen2 sentences2010See State v. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d 507, 509 (Tex. 1984), quoting Bevil v. Johnson, 157 Tex. 621 , 307 S.W.2d 85, 87 (1957); Johnson v. Hawkins, 255 S.W.3d 394, 397 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2008, pet. denied); Hung v. Bullock, 180 S.W.3d 931, 932 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2006, no pet.); Herrera, 281 S.W.3d at 6 . 2010See State v. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d 507, 509 (Tex.1984), quoting Bevil v. Johnson, 157 Tex. 621 , 307 S.W.2d 85, 87 (1957); Johnson v. Hawkins, 255 S.W.3d 394, 397 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, pet. denied); Hung v. Bullock, 180 S.W.3d 931, 932 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, no pet.); Herrera, 281 S.W.3d at 6 . | 3 | 3 |
Fox v. Wardygreen2 sentences2010See State v. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d 507, 508-09 (Tex. 1984); Fox v. Wardy, 234 S.W.3d 30, 32 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2007, pet. dism’d w.o.j.); Dick Poe Motors, Inc., v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 169 S.W.3d 478, 484 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2005, no pet.); Herrera v. Rivera, 281 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2005, no pet.); Fox v. Wardy, 225 S.W.3d 198, 199 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2005, pet. denied) (“The decision to dismiss a case for want of prosecution rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and can be disturbed on review only if it amounted to a clear abuse of discretion.”). 2010See State v. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d 507, 508-09 (Tex.1984); Fox v. Wardy, 234 S.W.3d 30, 32 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2007, pet. dism’d w.o.j.); Dick Poe Motors, Inc. v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp., 169 S.W.3d 478, 484 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2005, no pet.); Herrera v. Rivera, 281 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2005, no pet.); Fox v. Wardy, 225 S.W.3d 198, 199 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2005, pet. denied) (“The decision to dismiss a case for want of prosecution rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and can be disturbed on review only if it amounted to a clear abuse of discretion.”). | 3 | 3 |
Hatteberg v. Hatteberggreen2 sentences2006See Hatteberg v. Hatteberg, 933 S.W.2d 522, 526 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1994. no writ). 2006See Hatteberg v. Hatteberg, 933 S.W.2d 522, 526 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1994. no writ). | 3 | 3 |
Ginsberg v. Fifth Court of Appealsgreen2 sentences1988Ginsberg v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 686 S.W.2d 105 (Tex.1985). 1988The court in Dickens quoted from Callahan v. Giles, 137 Tex. 571 , 155 S.W.2d 793, 795 (1941), as follows: “Mandamus is an extraordinary writ, and is not issued as a matter of right, but rests largely in the sound discretion of the court.” The Dickens court made it clear that when reviewing “mandamus actions” of the courts of appeals, it will utilize “the clear abuse of discretion standard” previously adopted in Ginsberg v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 686 S.W.2d 105, 107 (Tex.1985). 2 As we read Dickens , neither the Court of Criminal Appeals nor the Courts of Appeals may issue a writ of mandamus | 2 | 3 |
Garcia v. Barreirogreen2 sentences2025MacGregor v. Rich, 941 S.W.2d 74, 75 (Tex. 1997); State v. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d 507 , 508–09 (Tex. 1984); Fox v. Wardy, 234 S.W.3d 30, 32 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, pet. dism’d w.o.j.); Dick Poe Motors, Inc., v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 169 S.W.3d 478, 484 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, no pet.); Garcia v. Barreiro, 115 S.W.3d 271, 275 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi, 2003, no pet.). 2015MacGregor v. Rich, 941 S.W.2d 74, 75 (Tex. 1997); State v. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d 507 , 508–09 (Tex. 1984); Fox v. Wardy, 234 S.W.3d 30, 32 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, pet. dism’d w.o.j.); Dick Poe Motors, Inc., v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 169 S.W.3d 478, 484 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, no pet.); Garcia v. Barreiro, 115 S.W.3d 271, 275 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi, 2003, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
Houlihan v. Stategreen2 sentences2023App. 1987) (“Therefore, we adopt the clear abuse of discretion standard when reviewing the mandamus actions of the courts of appeals and apply it to the instant case.”); Houlihan v. State, 579 S.W.2d 213 , 218 n. 7 (Tex. Crim. 1987Houlihan, supra. The Supreme Court of Texas has adopted the clear abuse of discretion standard for reviewing the mandamus action of a court of appeals in civil cases. | 2 | 2 |
Callahan v. Staplesgreen2 sentences2021“A plaintiff has a duty to ‘prosecut[e] the suit to a conclusion with reasonable diligence,’ failing which a trial court may dismiss for want of prosecution.” In re Conner, 458 S.W.3d at 534 (alteration in original) (quoting Callahan v. Staples, 161 S.W.2d 489, 491 (Tex. 1942)). 2019“A plaintiff has a duty to ‘prosecut[e] the suit to a conclusion with reasonable diligence,’ failing which a trial court may dismiss for want of prosecution.” In re Conner, 458 S.W.3d at 534 (quoting Callahan v. Staples, 161 S.W.2d 489, 491 (Tex. 1942)). | 2 | 2 |
Enriquez v. Livingstongreen2 sentences2019McGregor v. Rich, 941 S.W.2d 74, 75 (Tex. 1997); Enriquez v. Livingston, 400 S.W.3d 610, 614 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, pet. denied). 2016Enriquez v. Livingston, 400 S.W.3d 610, 614 (Tex. App.-Austin 2013, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g) (citing MacGregor v. Rich, 941 S.W.2d 74, 75 (Tex. 1997) (per cu-riam)). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.green2 sentences2012In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., LP, 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). ―To satisfy the clear abuse of discretion standard, the relator must show ‗that the trial court could reasonably have reached only one decision.‘‖ Liberty Nat’l First Ins. 2012In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., LP, 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). ―To satisfy the clear abuse of discretion standard, the relator must show ‗that the trial court could reasonably have reached only one 6 decision.‘‖ Liberty Nat’l First Ins. | 2 | 2 |
Hernandez v. Heldenfelsgreen2 sentences2008Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture , 145 S.W.3d at 161 ; Hernandez v. Heldenfels , 374 S.W.2d 196, 202 (Tex. 1963). 2008Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d at 161 ; Hernandez v. Heldenfels, 374 S.W.2d 196, 202 (Tex. 1963). | 2 | 2 |
Dickens v. Court of Appeals for the Second Supreme Judicial District of Texasgreen2 sentences1994Jealous of its own supremacy in matters of criminal law, and unable to stomach the possibility that some criminal law matters might be finally resolved in the lower appellate courts, this Court announced that “the traditional two-part test for determining whether mandamus should issue ... is altered [only by] adoption today of the clear abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the mandamus actions of the courts' of appeals.” Dickens v. Second Court of Appeals, 727 S.W.2d 542, 550 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). 1994Jealous of its own supremacy in matters of criminal law, and unable to stomach the possibility that some criminal law matters might be finally resolved in the lower appellate courts, this Court announced that "the traditional two-part test for determining whether mandamus should issue ... is altered [only by] adoption today of the clear abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the mandamus actions of the courts of appeals." Dickens v. Second Court of Appeals, 727 S.W.2d 542, 550 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). | 2 | 2 |
In re Stategreen2 sentences2019In re State, 556 S.W.3d 821, 826 (Tex. 2018). 2019In re State , 556 S.W.3d 821 , 826 (Tex. 2018). | 1 | 2 |
Womack v. Berrygreen2 sentences2023App. 1979) (“It is axiomatic that the writ of mandamus may not be utilized to revise or correct an error in discretion committed in exercise of a judicial duty unless in the particular case there is a clear abuse of discretion.”) (citing Womack v. Berry, 156 Tex. 44 , 291 S.W.2d 677, 682 (1956)). 30 Joachim, 815 S.W.2d at 240 . 2023App. 1979) (“It is axiomatic that the writ of mandamus may not be utilized to revise or correct an error in discretion committed in exercise of a judicial duty unless in the particular case there is a clear abuse of discretion.”) (citing Womack v. Berry, 156 Tex. 44 , 291 S.W.2d 677, 682 (1956)). 30 Joachim, 815 S.W.2d at 240 . | 1 | 1 |
Lopez v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See id.; Young v. State, 591 S.W.3d 579 , 592 (Tex. App.—Austin 2019, pet. ref’d) (first citing Lopez v. State, 86 S.W.3d 228, 230 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Dyer Custom Installation, Inc.green1 sentence2020ANALYSIS “We review a petition for writ of mandamus under a clear abuse of discretion standard.” In re Dyer Custom Installation, Inc., 133 S.W.3d 878, 880 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2004, orig. proceeding) (citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)). | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Labatt Food Service, L.P.green | 1 | 1 |
| BMC Software Belgium, NV v. Marchandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Calaway v. Gardnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Morris v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Shell Oil Co. v. HRN, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| HRN, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Keough v. Cyrus USA, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Walkergreen | 1 | 1 |
| 3V, INC. v. JTS Enterprises, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Rachal v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mendezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Goode v. Shoukfehgreen | 1 | 1 |
| EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Robinsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Griggs v. Capitol MacHine Works, Inc.
green
2 sentences2026“A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts without reference to any guiding rules and principles or reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” Franklin v. Benton-Elam, No. 06-13-00126-CV, 2014 WL 1722165 , at *7 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Apr. 30, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 , 241–42 (Tex. 1985)). 2020“A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts without reference to any guiding rules and principles or reaches a 11 decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” Franklin v. Benton-Elam, No. 06-13-00126-CV, 2014 WL 1722165 , at *7 (Tex. App.— Texarkana Apr. 30, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 , 241–42 (Tex. 1985)). | 2 | 2020–2026 |
Joachim v. Chambers
green
1 sentence2023App. 1979) (“It is axiomatic that the writ of mandamus may not be utilized to revise or correct an error in discretion committed in exercise of a judicial duty unless in the particular case there is a clear abuse of discretion.”) (citing Womack v. Berry, 156 Tex. 44 , 291 S.W.2d 677, 682 (1956)). 30 Joachim, 815 S.W.2d at 240 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re Living Centers of Texas, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020“Mandamus is appropriate to protect confidential documents from discovery.” In re Living Ctrs. of Tex., Inc., 175 S.W.3d 253 , 256 -3- 04-19-00833-CV (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Ozuna v. Southwest Bio-Clinical Laboratories green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Phoenix Founders, Inc. v. Marshall green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| National Tank Co. v. Brotherton green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Hosey v. County of Victoria green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Smith v. Flack green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Perkins v. Court of Appeals for Third Supreme Judicial District of Texas green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| State Ex Rel. Curry v. Gray green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| State Ex Rel. Vance v. Routt green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.
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.