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 3 courts 1974–2022 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Malooly Brothers, Inc. v. Napiergreen2 sentences2003In his second point of error, appellant asserts the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. [5] Appellant cites Malooly Brothers v. Napier , 461 S.W.2d 119 (Tex. 1970), thus making this point of error a general assignment of error challenging all bases upon which the judgment could have been granted. 2001None of Continental’s eighteen points of error adopt the form for a general assignment of error suggested by the Texas Supreme Court in Malooly Brothers, Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex.1970). | 21 | 25 |
Binur v. Jacobogreen2 sentences2010See Binur v. Jacobo , 135 S.W.3d 646, 650 (Tex. 2004). [5] A general assignment of error in granting summary judgment is permitted. 2008See Binur v. Jacobo , 135 S.W.3d 646, 650 (Tex. 2004). [5] A general assignment of error in granting summary judgment is permitted. | 2 | 2 |
Surgitek, Bristol-Myers Corp. v. Abelgreen1 sentence2021To accomplish this, an appellant may challenge a summary judgment by making either a general assignment of error covering all possible No. 02-11-00169-CV, 2013 WL 978782 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 14, 2013, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (citing 51 Tex. Jur. 3d Motion Procedure § 3 (2008)); see also Surgitek, Bristol-Myers Corp. v. Abel, 997 S.W.2d 598, 601 (Tex. 1999) (“[W]e look to the substance of a motion to determine the relief sought, not merely to its title.”). 4 The title of the trial court’s order granting summary judgment is “Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Ba | 1 | 1 |
Mathes v. Keltongreen1 sentence2021See Mathes v. Kelton, 569 S.W.2d 876 , 878 n.3 (Tex. 1978) (stating that the substance and not the label or form of a judgment is controlling in determining its validity). | 1 | 1 |
Turnage v. JPI Multifamily, Inc.green1 sentence2015See Turnage, 64 S.W.3d at 617 . | 1 | 1 |
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havnergreen1 sentence2010See also Merrell Dow Pharms, Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 711 (Tex. 1997). 5 A general assignment of error in granting summary judgment is permitted. | 1 | 1 |
American Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Grinnellgreen1 sentence2010See American Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420, 425 (Tex. 1997), citing Nixon v. Mr. Property Management, 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex. 1985). 1 A general assignment of error in granting summary judgment is permitted. | 1 | 1 |
Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co.green1 sentence2010See American Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420, 425 (Tex. 1997), citing Nixon v. Mr. Property Management, 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex. 1985). 1 A general assignment of error in granting summary judgment is permitted. | 1 | 1 |
Dubow v. Dragongreen1 sentence2004See Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119, 120 (Tex.1970); Reese v. Beaumont Bank, N.A., 790 S.W.2d 801, 804 (Tex.App.Beaumont 1990, no writ); see also Dubow v. Dragon, 746 S.W.2d 857, 859 (Tex.App.Dallas 1988, no writ) (where there is no general point of error complaining of the granting of summary judgment, if there is another possible ground, which is not attacked by point of error, on which the judgment could have been entered, the judgment must be affirmed); King v. Texas Employers’ Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Reese v. Beaumont Bank, N.A.green1 sentence2004See Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119, 120 (Tex.1970); Reese v. Beaumont Bank, N.A., 790 S.W.2d 801, 804 (Tex.App.Beaumont 1990, no writ); see also Dubow v. Dragon, 746 S.W.2d 857, 859 (Tex.App.Dallas 1988, no writ) (where there is no general point of error complaining of the granting of summary judgment, if there is another possible ground, which is not attacked by point of error, on which the judgment could have been entered, the judgment must be affirmed); King v. Texas Employers’ Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Watson v. Glens Falls Insurance Companygreen1 sentence1980We quote from Watson v. Glen Falls Insurance Company, 505 S.W.2d 793, 797 (Tex.1974): “Hence, Malooly Brothers, Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119 (Tex.1970), precludes any recovery by Mrs. Watson since she neither challenged the summary judgment on the correct ground nor preserved the correct ground via a general assignment of error in granting the summary judgment.” See Morgan v. Fox, 536 S.W.2d 644, 650 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1976, writ ref’d n. r. e.). | 1 | 1 |
Morgan v. Foxgreen1 sentence1980We quote from Watson v. Glen Falls Insurance Company, 505 S.W.2d 793, 797 (Tex.1974): “Hence, Malooly Brothers, Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119 (Tex.1970), precludes any recovery by Mrs. Watson since she neither challenged the summary judgment on the correct ground nor preserved the correct ground via a general assignment of error in granting the summary judgment.” See Morgan v. Fox, 536 S.W.2d 644, 650 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1976, writ ref’d n. r. e.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. State
green
1 sentence1974Appellant’s last ground of error urges that “The Court erred in allowing introduction in evidence any evidence or item seized as a result of the arrest and subsequent search of Appellant and the automobile he was driving.” Following this general assignment of error, there is a description of the arrest, and then a lengthy quotation from our opinion in Brown v. State, 481 S.W.2d 106 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.