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.
24 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1957–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Texas Education Agency v. Leepergreen2 sentences2026Cf. TEA v. Leeper, 893 S.W.2d 432, 443 (Tex. 1994) (“Not every statement by an administrative agency is a rule for which the APA prescribes procedures for adoption and for judicial review.”). 2015Agency v. Leeper, 893 S.W.2d 432 (1994) 98 Ed. Law Rep. 491 , 38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 390 Not every statement by an administrative agency is a rule for which the APA prescribes procedures for adoption and for judicial review. | 16 | 18 |
Brinkley v. Texas Lottery Commissiongreen2 sentences2015As the Comptroller’s witness testified, these letters communicated the Comptroller’s intention to apply section 151.024 in all cases involving brochure fundraising firms, thereby interpreting the tax code to mean that such firms are, for purposes of collecting and remitting sales tax, always the “sellers” of the taxable items. [10] As the Comptroller correctly points out, however, “[n]ot every statement by an administrative agency is a rule for which the APA prescribes procedures for adoption....” Brinkley v. Texas Lottery Comm’n, 986 S.W.2d 764, 769 (Tex.App.-Austin 1999, no pet.) (quoting Te 2009As the Comptroller correctly points out, however, “[n]ot every statement by an administrative agency is a rule for which the APA prescribes procedures for adoption.... ” Brinkley v. Texas Lottery Comm’n, 986 S.W.2d 764, 769 (Tex.App.-Austin 1999, no pet.) (quoting Texas Educ. | 8 | 8 |
Teladoc, Inc. v. Texas Medical Board and Nancy Leshikar, in Her Official Capacity as General Counsel of the Texas Medical Boardgreen1 sentence2022Bd., 453 S.W.3d 606, 621 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014, pet. denied) (citing Texas Educ. | 1 | 1 |
Sands L. Stiefer, Chief Appraiser of the Harris County Appraisal District v. Edward Moers and Daniel Moersgreen1 sentence2017See TEX.TAX CODE ANN. § 11.31(d), (c)(3). 18 469 S.W.3d 655, 664 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. denied)(observing that an administrative agency rule is facially invalid if it contravenes specific statutory language, runs counter to the general objectives of the relevant statute, or imposes burdens, conditions, or restrictions in excess of or inconsistent with the statute)(citing State Office of Pub. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Railroad Commission of Texas v. Shell Oil Co.
green
1 sentence1957(Ten Year Supp.) 124; Railroad Commission v. Shell Oil Company, 139 Tex. 65 , 161 S.W.2d 1022 ; Hawkins v. Texas Company, 146 Tex. 511 , 209 S.W.2d 338 . *533 The evidence before the court was to the effect that Calvin H. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Hawkins v. Texas Co.
green
2 sentences1957(Ten Year Supp.) 124; Railroad Commission v. Shell Oil Company, 139 Tex. 65 , 161 S.W.2d 1022 ; Hawkins v. Texas Company, 146 Tex. 511 , 209 S.W.2d 338 . *533 The evidence before the court was to the effect that Calvin H. 1957(Ten Year Supp.) 124; Railroad Commission v. Shell Oil Company, 139 Tex. 65 , 161 S.W.2d 1022 ; Hawkins v. Texas Company, 146 Tex. 511 , 209 S.W.2d 338 . *533 The evidence before the court was to the effect that Calvin H. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
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.