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.
28 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1961–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Attorney General ex rel. Washington v. Rideauxgreen2 sentences2023Cf. Estes v. Richerson, No. 02-17-00391- 7 Freeman v. Freeman, 327 S.W.2d 428, 431 (Tex. 1959), disapproved of on other grounds by Mapco, Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S.W.2d 700 (Tex. 1990); Beller v. Fry Roofing, Inc., No. 04-05- 00159-CV, 2005 WL 3115828 , at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 23, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.); Att’y Gen. of Tex. v. Rideaux, 838 S.W.2d 340, 341 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ) (“[A] trial court’s authority to dismiss cases for want of prosecution does not confer upon it the authority to adjudicate . . . the merits of the dismissed claim.”). 2022Wash. v. Rideaux, 838 S.W.2d 340, 341 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ) (“[A] trial court’s authority to dismiss cases for want of prosecution does not confer upon it the authority to adjudicate and deny the merits of the dismissed claim.”)); Andrews v. ABJ Adjusters, Inc., 800 S.W.2d 567, 568 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, writ denied) (“As a general rule, a dismissal for want of prosecution with prejudice is improper.”). | 4 | 5 |
Gracey v. Westgreen2 sentences2016Gracey v. West, 422 S.W.2d 913, 917 (Tex. 1968); Lum v. Lacy, 616 S.W.2d 260, 261 (Tex. Civ. 2015Dist.] , Mar. 31, 2015, no pet.) (mem.op.); see also Gracey v. West, 422 S.W.2d 913, 917 (Tex.1968) (“The judgment of dismissal of the cause for want of prosecution, is not a judgment on the merits of the cause.”); cf. Porras v. Jefferson, 409 S.W.3d 804, 807-08 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (“[T]hough a trial court has the inherent power to dismiss a case for want of prosecution, this power does not confer upon the court the authority to adjudicate and deny the merits of the dismissed claim.”). | 3 | 4 |
Lum v. Lacygreen2 sentences2016Gracey v. West, 422 S.W.2d 913, 917 (Tex. 1968); Lum v. Lacy, 616 S.W.2d 260, 261 (Tex. Civ. 2013Attorney Gen. of Tex. v. Rideaux, 888 S.W.2d 840, 341 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ); see also Lum v. Lacy, 616 S.W.2d 260, 261 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1981, no writ) (“A judgment on the merits should not be made until the plaintiff has had his day in court”). | 3 | 3 |
Robert Porras v. Mary L. Jeferrson, Independent of the Estate of Andrew L. Jefferson, Jr.green2 sentences2024Though a trial court has the inherent power to dismiss a case for want of prosecution, this power does not “confer upon the court the authority to adjudicate and deny the merits of the dismissed claim.” Id. at 807–08. 2015Dist.] , Mar. 31, 2015, no pet.) (mem.op.); see also Gracey v. West, 422 S.W.2d 913, 917 (Tex.1968) (“The judgment of dismissal of the cause for want of prosecution, is not a judgment on the merits of the cause.”); cf. Porras v. Jefferson, 409 S.W.3d 804, 807-08 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (“[T]hough a trial court has the inherent power to dismiss a case for want of prosecution, this power does not confer upon the court the authority to adjudicate and deny the merits of the dismissed claim.”). | 1 | 2 |
Freeman v. Freemangreen2 sentences2023Cf. Estes v. Richerson, No. 02-17-00391- 7 Freeman v. Freeman, 327 S.W.2d 428, 431 (Tex. 1959), disapproved of on other grounds by Mapco, Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S.W.2d 700 (Tex. 1990); Beller v. Fry Roofing, Inc., No. 04-05- 00159-CV, 2005 WL 3115828 , at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 23, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.); Att’y Gen. of Tex. v. Rideaux, 838 S.W.2d 340, 341 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ) (“[A] trial court’s authority to dismiss cases for want of prosecution does not confer upon it the authority to adjudicate . . . the merits of the dismissed claim.”). 1980Freeman v. Freeman, 160 Tex. 148 , 327 S.W.2d 428 (1959); Smock v. Fischel, 146 Tex. 397 , 207 S.W.2d 891 (1948). | 1 | 2 |
Andrews v. ABJ Adjusters, Inc.green1 sentence2022Wash. v. Rideaux, 838 S.W.2d 340, 341 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ) (“[A] trial court’s authority to dismiss cases for want of prosecution does not confer upon it the authority to adjudicate and deny the merits of the dismissed claim.”)); Andrews v. ABJ Adjusters, Inc., 800 S.W.2d 567, 568 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, writ denied) (“As a general rule, a dismissal for want of prosecution with prejudice is improper.”). | 1 | 1 |
Delhomme v. Commission for Lawyer Disciplinegreen1 sentence2019See Rodriguez v. Crutchfield, 301 S.W.3d 772, 775 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (citing Clary Corp., 949 S.W.2d at 459 ); Delhomme v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline, 113 S.W.3d 616, 621 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.) (citing Clary Corp., 949 S.W.2d at 460 ). | 1 | 1 |
Clary Corp. v. Smithgreen2 sentences2019See Rodriguez v. Crutchfield, 301 S.W.3d 772, 775 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (citing Clary Corp., 949 S.W.2d at 459 ); Delhomme v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline, 113 S.W.3d 616, 621 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.) (citing Clary Corp., 949 S.W.2d at 460 ). 2019See Rodriguez v. Crutchfield, 301 S.W.3d 772, 775 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (citing Clary Corp., 949 S.W.2d at 459 ); Delhomme v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline, 113 S.W.3d 616, 621 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.) (citing Clary Corp., 949 S.W.2d at 460 ). | 1 | 1 |
Rodriguez v. Crutchfieldgreen1 sentence2019See Rodriguez v. Crutchfield, 301 S.W.3d 772, 775 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (citing Clary Corp., 949 S.W.2d at 459 ); Delhomme v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline, 113 S.W.3d 616, 621 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.) (citing Clary Corp., 949 S.W.2d at 460 ). | 1 | 1 |
Office of the Attorney General of Texas v. Laura G. Rodriguezgreen1 sentence2017See Office of Attorney Gen. of Tex. v. Rodriguez, 420 S.W.3d 99, 101 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2012, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Virginia O. Kinsel, as Attorney-In-Fact for J. Frank Kinsel, J. Frank Kinsel, Jr., Carole K. Edwards, and Catherine K. Collins v. Jane O. Lindsey, Individually and as Co-Trustee of the Lesey B. Kinsel Trust, Robert N. Oliver, Keith Branyon and Jackson Walker, Llpgreen2 sentences2017See Kinsel v. Lindsey, No. 15-0403, 526 S.W.3d 411, 423-24 , 2017 WL 2324392, at *9 (Tex. May 26, 2017). 2017See Kinsel v. Lindsey, No. 15-0403, 526 S.W.3d 411, 423-24 , 2017 WL 2324392, at *9 (Tex. May 26, 2017). | 1 | 1 |
Industrial Structure & Fabrication, Inc. v. Arrowhead Industrial Water, Inc.green1 sentence2013Attorney Gen. of Tex. v. Rideaux, 888 S.W.2d 840, 341 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ); see also Lum v. Lacy, 616 S.W.2d 260, 261 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1981, no writ) (“A judgment on the merits should not be made until the plaintiff has had his day in court”). | 1 | 1 |
Hamilton v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2011See Hamilton v. Williams, 298 S.W.3d 334, 340 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. denied) (holding appellate court may affirm dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies even if that ground was not basis of trial court’s dismissal in inmate suit subject to chapter fourteen). | 1 | 1 |
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.red1 sentence2006See Lehman v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001) (explaining that a final judgment is one that finally disposes of all remaining claims and indicating that a dismissed claim is not a remaining claim). | 1 | 1 |
Lentworth v. Trahangreen1 sentence2003See Lentworth v. Trahan , 981 S.W.2d 720, 722 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Randle v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See Zuniga, 878 S.W.2d at 314 . | 1 | 1 |
Zuniga v. Groce, Locke & Hebdongreen1 sentence2003See Zuniga, 878 S.W.2d at 314 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smock v. Fischel
green
2 sentences1980Freeman v. Freeman, 160 Tex. 148 , 327 S.W.2d 428 (1959); Smock v. Fischel, 146 Tex. 397 , 207 S.W.2d 891 (1948). 1980Freeman v. Freeman, 160 Tex. 148 , 327 S.W.2d 428 (1959); Smock v. Fischel, 146 Tex. 397 , 207 S.W.2d 891 (1948). | 2 | 1961–1980 |
Mapco, Inc. v. Forrest
green
1 sentence2023Cf. Estes v. Richerson, No. 02-17-00391- 7 Freeman v. Freeman, 327 S.W.2d 428, 431 (Tex. 1959), disapproved of on other grounds by Mapco, Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S.W.2d 700 (Tex. 1990); Beller v. Fry Roofing, Inc., No. 04-05- 00159-CV, 2005 WL 3115828 , at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 23, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.); Att’y Gen. of Tex. v. Rideaux, 838 S.W.2d 340, 341 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ) (“[A] trial court’s authority to dismiss cases for want of prosecution does not confer upon it the authority to adjudicate . . . the merits of the dismissed claim.”). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Dolenz v. All Saints Episcopal Hospital
green
1 sentence2020Randolph, 29 S.W.3d at 275 ; Dolenz, 638 S.W.2d at 142 ; Radelow-Gittens Real Prop. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Randolph v. Walker
green
1 sentence2020Randolph, 29 S.W.3d at 275 ; Dolenz, 638 S.W.2d at 142 ; Radelow-Gittens Real Prop. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
NEXION HEALTH AT BEECHNUT, INC. v. Paul
green
1 sentence2015Nexion Health, 335 S.W.3d at 718 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.
green
1 sentence2012The trial court dismissed his claim because he did not “adequately allege[ ] a prima facie case, in that he ha[d] not adequately alleged circumstances that support an inference of discrimination.” Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Mantri v. Bergman
green
1 sentence2012Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Gray v. CHCA Bayshore L.P.
green
1 sentence2011Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Transamerica Insurance Group v. United Pacific Insurance
green
1 sentence1997Transamerica, 593 P.2d at 157 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Soliday v. Miami County, Ohio
green
1 sentence1996The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment on the express premise that coroners, as government officials, are entitled to “qualified immunity from civil suits for damages arising out of their performance of their official duties.” Id. at 1164 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc.
green
2 sentences1991Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc., 485 U.S. 80 , 108 S.Ct. 896 , 99 L.Ed.2d 75 (1988), eliminated the requirement of proving that a dismissed claim or defense has probable merit in a bill of review attacking a judgment rendered without proper notice. 1991Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc., 485 U.S. 80 , 108 S.Ct. 896 , 99 L.Ed.2d 75 (1988), eliminated the requirement of proving that a dismissed claim or defense has probable merit in a bill of review attacking a judgment rendered without proper notice. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
McEwen v. Harrison
green
2 sentences1981In McEwen v. Harrison, 162 Tex. 125 , 345 S.W.2d 706 (1961), the Court made it clear that the exclusive remedy of a bill of review and its requirement of showing a lack of fault or negligence on the defaulting party is applicable “in a case in which the court had jurisdictional power to render it.” As Justice Pope noted in Murphy v. Stigall, supra, “The power to dismiss does not empower the court to adjudicate and deny the dismissed claim.” Therefore, we conclude that since the trial Court was without power to deny the claim by dismissing with prejudice, a bill of review is not required to set 1981In McEwen v. Harrison, 162 Tex. 125 , 345 S.W.2d 706 (1961), the Court made it clear that the exclusive remedy of a bill of review and its requirement of showing a lack of fault or negligence on the defaulting party is applicable “in a case in which the court had jurisdictional power to render it.” As Justice Pope noted in Murphy v. Stigall, supra, “The power to dismiss does not empower the court to adjudicate and deny the dismissed claim.” Therefore, we conclude that since the trial Court was without power to deny the claim by dismissing with prejudice, a bill of review is not required to set | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Murphy v. Stigall
green
1 sentence1981In McEwen v. Harrison, 162 Tex. 125 , 345 S.W.2d 706 (1961), the Court made it clear that the exclusive remedy of a bill of review and its requirement of showing a lack of fault or negligence on the defaulting party is applicable “in a case in which the court had jurisdictional power to render it.” As Justice Pope noted in Murphy v. Stigall, supra, “The power to dismiss does not empower the court to adjudicate and deny the dismissed claim.” Therefore, we conclude that since the trial Court was without power to deny the claim by dismissing with prejudice, a bill of review is not required to set | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.