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 2 courts 1978–2025 2 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 sentences2010Co. v. Akin, 927 S.W.2d 627, 630 (Tex.1996). 2010Co. v. Akin , 927 S.W.2d 627, 630 (Tex. 1996). | 5 | 5 |
Gwendolyn Galloway, Mitchell Irwin, Clayton Irwin, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Mary Ann Irwin v. Atrium Medical Center, L.P., Shahid Q. Mallick and Syed Zaidigreen2 sentences2023See Galloway v. Atrium Medical Center, 558 S.W.3d 316 , 322–23 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.). 2023See Galloway v. Atrium Medical Center, 558 S.W.3d 316 , 322–23 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Mead Corp.green2 sentences2011See U.S. v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 229-30 , 121 S.Ct. 2164 , 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001). 2011See U.S. v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 229-30 , 121 S.Ct. 2164 , 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
Rowan Oil Co. v. Texas Employment Commissiongreen1 sentence2008Although a legislature cannot interpret the law, see Rowan Oil, 263 S.W.2d at 144 (“one session of the legislature [does not] have the power to ... declare the intent of a past session”), it can establish the effective date of a law it enacts — and, subject to constitutional restraints not raised here, can make that law retroactively effective if it so chooses. | 1 | 1 |
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Gandygreen2 sentences2008Co. v. Candy, 925 S.W.2d 696, 719-20 (Tex. 1996) (applying the Chevron factors in determining whether Texas Supreme Court decision should be applied retroactively). 2008Co. v. Candy, 925 S.W.2d 696, 719-20 (Tex. 1996) (applying the Chevron factors in determining whether Texas Supreme Court decision should be applied retroactively). | 1 | 1 |
Moorhouse v. Ambassador Insurancegreen2 sentences1992Co., Inc., 147 Mich.App. 412 , 383 N.W.2d 219, 223 (1985) (examined "(1) the purpose of the new rule, (2) the general reliance upon the old rule, and (3) the effect of full retroactive application of the new rule on the administration of justice."); Sumners v. Sumners, 701 S.W.2d 720, 724 (Mo. 1985) (en banc) (adopted a test closely resembling Chevron); Orleans v. Commercial Union Ins. 1992Co., Inc., 147 Mich.App. 412 , 383 N.W.2d 219, 223 (1985) (examined "(1) the purpose of the new rule, (2) the general reliance upon the old rule, and (3) the effect of full retroactive application of the new rule on the administration of justice."); Sumners v. Sumners, 701 S.W.2d 720, 724 (Mo. 1985) (en banc) (adopted a test closely resembling Chevron); Orleans v. Commercial Union Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Orleans v. Commercial Union Insurancegreen2 sentences1992Co., 133 N.H. 493 , 578 A.2d 360, 362 (1990) (declined to adopt Chevron test outright but noted its usefulness and applied it); Rutherford Educ. 1992Co., 133 N.H. 493 , 578 A.2d 360, 362 (1990) (declined to adopt Chevron test outright but noted its usefulness and applied it); Rutherford Educ. | 1 | 1 |
Swanson v. Stategreen2 sentences1992In Beam the Court had an opportunity to say that the rule of Chevron should no longer be applied in civil cases and declined to do so." Swanson v. State, 329 N.C. 576 , 407 S.E.2d 791, 795 (1991); see Stroh Brewery Co. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 112 N.M. 468 , 816 P.2d 1090, 1093-94 (1991). [36] Conflict exists among the various courts that use the Chevron test concerning the weight each Chevron factor should be given in applying the test. 1992In Beam the Court had an opportunity to say that the rule of Chevron should no longer be applied in civil cases and declined to do so." Swanson v. State, 329 N.C. 576 , 407 S.E.2d 791, 795 (1991); see Stroh Brewery Co. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 112 N.M. 468 , 816 P.2d 1090, 1093-94 (1991). [36] Conflict exists among the various courts that use the Chevron test concerning the weight each Chevron factor should be given in applying the test. | 1 | 1 |
Alaskan Village, Inc. v. Smalley Ex Rel. Smalleygreen2 sentences1992Furthermore Justice Stevens, the author of the dissent in American Trucking, refused to join Justices Blackmun, Scalia, and Marshall's dissents or to question Chevron `s vitality. [35] Eg., Ex parte Coker, 575 So.2d 43, 52 (Ala. 1990) (noted usefulness of the Chevron test and applied it to state law question); Alaskan Village, Inc. v. Smalley, 720 P.2d 945, 949 (Alaska 1986) (new rule could be applied prospectively if "(1) the rule is one of first impression ... (2) defendant justifiably relied on prior interpretations, (3) undue hardship would result, and (4) the purpose and effect of the hol 1992Furthermore Justice Stevens, the author of the dissent in American Trucking, refused to join Justices Blackmun, Scalia, and Marshall's dissents or to question Chevron `s vitality. [35] Eg., Ex parte Coker, 575 So.2d 43, 52 (Ala. 1990) (noted usefulness of the Chevron test and applied it to state law question); Alaskan Village, Inc. v. Smalley, 720 P.2d 945, 949 (Alaska 1986) (new rule could be applied prospectively if "(1) the rule is one of first impression ... (2) defendant justifiably relied on prior interpretations, (3) undue hardship would result, and (4) the purpose and effect of the hol | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Consolidated Freightways Corporation Of Delawaregreen2 sentences1992Silverman v. Barry, 845 F.2d 1072, 1085-86 (D.C.Cir.1988) (court applied decision prospectively despite fact that second prong did not favor prospectivity); Iones v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 776 F.2d 1458 , 1460 (10th Cir.1985) (“A proper assessment under Chevron Oil focuses upon the relative significance of the individual Chevron factors. 1992Silverman v. Barry, 845 F.2d 1072, 1085-86 (D.C.Cir.1988) (court applied decision prospectively despite fact that second prong did not favor prospectivity); Jones v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 776 F.2d 1458, 1460 (10th Cir.1985) ("A proper assessment under Chevron Oil focuses upon the relative significance of the individual Chevron factors. | 1 | 1 |
Robert I. Silverman v. Marion Barry, Mayor of the District of Columbiagreen2 sentences1992Silverman v. Barry, 845 F.2d 1072, 1085-86 (D.C.Cir.1988) (court applied decision prospectively despite fact that second prong did not favor prospectivity); Iones v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 776 F.2d 1458 , 1460 (10th Cir.1985) (“A proper assessment under Chevron Oil focuses upon the relative significance of the individual Chevron factors. 1992Silverman v. Barry, 845 F.2d 1072, 1085-86 (D.C.Cir.1988) (court applied decision prospectively despite fact that second prong did not favor prospectivity); Jones v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 776 F.2d 1458, 1460 (10th Cir.1985) ("A proper assessment under Chevron Oil focuses upon the relative significance of the individual Chevron factors. | 1 | 1 |
Rutherford Education Ass'n v. Board of Educationgreen2 sentences1992Ass'n v. Board of Educ, 99 N.J. 8 , 489 A.2d 1148, 1155-56 (1985) (test contained "virtually the same factors" as the Chevron test); Gumee v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 55 N.Y.2d 184 , 448 N.Y.S.2d 145 , 433 N.E.2d 128, 130-31 (1982) (court used Chevron test to determine if state insurance law decision should be given retroactive effect); Fountain v. Fountain, 214 Va. 347 , 200 S.E.2d 513, 514-15 (1973) (explained that "consideration should be given to the purpose of the new rule, the extent of the reliance on the old rule, and the effect on the administration of justice of a retroactive appli 1992Ass'n v. Board of Educ, 99 N.J. 8 , 489 A.2d 1148, 1155-56 (1985) (test contained "virtually the same factors" as the Chevron test); Gumee v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 55 N.Y.2d 184 , 448 N.Y.S.2d 145 , 433 N.E.2d 128, 130-31 (1982) (court used Chevron test to determine if state insurance law decision should be given retroactive effect); Fountain v. Fountain, 214 Va. 347 , 200 S.E.2d 513, 514-15 (1973) (explained that "consideration should be given to the purpose of the new rule, the extent of the reliance on the old rule, and the effect on the administration of justice of a retroactive appli | 1 | 1 |
William Lowary and Sara Wyatt v. Lexington Local Board of Education, Ohio Education Association, Lexington Teachers Associationgreen2 sentences1992See, e.g., Lowary v. Lexington Local Bd. of Educ, 903 F.2d 422, 427 (6th Cir.1990); Schaefer v. First Natl Bank, 509 F.2d 1287, 1294 (7th Cir.1975). 1992See, e.g., Lowary v. Lexington Local Bd. of Educ, 903 F.2d 422, 427 (6th Cir.1990); Schaefer v. First Natl Bank, 509 F.2d 1287, 1294 (7th Cir.1975). | 1 | 1 |
| Schrottman v. Barniclegreen | 1 | 1 |
Wessely Energy Corp. v. Jenningsgreen2 sentences1992Wessely Energy Corp. v. Jennings, 736 S.W.2d 624, 628 (Tex.1987), and we consider it to be equally useful in matters of state law. 1992Wessely Energy Corp. v. Jennings, 736 S.W.2d 624, 628 (Tex.1987), and we consider it to be equally useful in matters of state law. | 1 | 1 |
Board of Commissioners v. County of Du Pagegreen2 sentences1992Co. v. Superior Court, 131 Ariz. 431 , 641 P.2d 1275, 1280 (1982) (en banc) (noted its approval of the Chevron test and applied it in the case); Woods v. Young, 53 Cal.3d 315 , 279 Cal.Rptr. 613 , 807 P.2d 455, 463 (1991) ("Particular considerations relevant to the retroactivity determination include the reasonableness of the parties' reliance on the former rule, the nature of the change as substantive or procedural, retroactivity's effect on the administration of justice, and the purposes to be served by the new rule"); Wood Dale, 83 Ill.Dec. at 226-28 , 469 N.E.2d at 1372-74 (applied Chevron 1992Co. v. Superior Court, 131 Ariz. 431 , 641 P.2d 1275, 1280 (1982) (en banc) (noted its approval of the Chevron test and applied it in the case); Woods v. Young, 53 Cal.3d 315 , 279 Cal.Rptr. 613 , 807 P.2d 455, 463 (1991) ("Particular considerations relevant to the retroactivity determination include the reasonableness of the parties' reliance on the former rule, the nature of the change as substantive or procedural, retroactivity's effect on the administration of justice, and the purposes to be served by the new rule"); Wood Dale, 83 Ill.Dec. at 226-28 , 469 N.E.2d at 1372-74 (applied Chevron | 1 | 1 |
| Sumners v. Sumnersgreen | 1 | 1 |
Robert Schaefer and Sandra Schaefer v. First National Bank of Lincolnwoodgreen2 sentences1992See, e.g., Lowary v. Lexington Local Bd. of Educ, 903 F.2d 422, 427 (6th Cir.1990); Schaefer v. First Natl Bank, 509 F.2d 1287, 1294 (7th Cir.1975). 1992See, e.g., Lowary v. Lexington Local Bd. of Educ, 903 F.2d 422, 427 (6th Cir.1990); Schaefer v. First Natl Bank, 509 F.2d 1287, 1294 (7th Cir.1975). | 1 | 1 |
Fountain v. Fountaingreen2 sentences1992Ass'n v. Board of Educ, 99 N.J. 8 , 489 A.2d 1148, 1155-56 (1985) (test contained "virtually the same factors" as the Chevron test); Gumee v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 55 N.Y.2d 184 , 448 N.Y.S.2d 145 , 433 N.E.2d 128, 130-31 (1982) (court used Chevron test to determine if state insurance law decision should be given retroactive effect); Fountain v. Fountain, 214 Va. 347 , 200 S.E.2d 513, 514-15 (1973) (explained that "consideration should be given to the purpose of the new rule, the extent of the reliance on the old rule, and the effect on the administration of justice of a retroactive appli 1992Ass'n v. Board of Educ, 99 N.J. 8 , 489 A.2d 1148, 1155-56 (1985) (test contained "virtually the same factors" as the Chevron test); Gumee v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 55 N.Y.2d 184 , 448 N.Y.S.2d 145 , 433 N.E.2d 128, 130-31 (1982) (court used Chevron test to determine if state insurance law decision should be given retroactive effect); Fountain v. Fountain, 214 Va. 347 , 200 S.E.2d 513, 514-15 (1973) (explained that "consideration should be given to the purpose of the new rule, the extent of the reliance on the old rule, and the effect on the administration of justice of a retroactive appli | 1 | 1 |
Chevron Chemical Co. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1992Co. v. Superior Court, 131 Ariz. 431 , 641 P.2d 1275, 1280 (1982) (en banc) (noted its approval of the Chevron test and applied it in the case); Woods v. Young, 53 Cal.3d 315 , 279 Cal.Rptr. 613 , 807 P.2d 455, 463 (1991) ("Particular considerations relevant to the retroactivity determination include the reasonableness of the parties' reliance on the former rule, the nature of the change as substantive or procedural, retroactivity's effect on the administration of justice, and the purposes to be served by the new rule"); Wood Dale, 83 Ill.Dec. at 226-28 , 469 N.E.2d at 1372-74 (applied Chevron 1992Co. v. Superior Court, 131 Ariz. 431 , 641 P.2d 1275, 1280 (1982) (en banc) (noted its approval of the Chevron test and applied it in the case); Woods v. Young, 53 Cal.3d 315 , 279 Cal.Rptr. 613 , 807 P.2d 455, 463 (1991) ("Particular considerations relevant to the retroactivity determination include the reasonableness of the parties' reliance on the former rule, the nature of the change as substantive or procedural, retroactivity's effect on the administration of justice, and the purposes to be served by the new rule"); Wood Dale, 83 Ill.Dec. at 226-28 , 469 N.E.2d at 1372-74 (applied Chevron | 1 | 1 |
Woods v. Younggreen2 sentences1992Co. v. Superior Court, 131 Ariz. 431 , 641 P.2d 1275, 1280 (1982) (en banc) (noted its approval of the Chevron test and applied it in the case); Woods v. Young, 53 Cal.3d 315 , 279 Cal.Rptr. 613 , 807 P.2d 455, 463 (1991) ("Particular considerations relevant to the retroactivity determination include the reasonableness of the parties' reliance on the former rule, the nature of the change as substantive or procedural, retroactivity's effect on the administration of justice, and the purposes to be served by the new rule"); Wood Dale, 83 Ill.Dec. at 226-28 , 469 N.E.2d at 1372-74 (applied Chevron 1992Co. v. Superior Court, 131 Ariz. 431 , 641 P.2d 1275, 1280 (1982) (en banc) (noted its approval of the Chevron test and applied it in the case); Woods v. Young, 53 Cal.3d 315 , 279 Cal.Rptr. 613 , 807 P.2d 455, 463 (1991) ("Particular considerations relevant to the retroactivity determination include the reasonableness of the parties' reliance on the former rule, the nature of the change as substantive or procedural, retroactivity's effect on the administration of justice, and the purposes to be served by the new rule"); Wood Dale, 83 Ill.Dec. at 226-28 , 469 N.E.2d at 1372-74 (applied Chevron | 1 | 1 |
| Ex Parte Cokergreen | 1 | 1 |
Gurnee v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.green2 sentences1992Ass'n v. Board of Educ, 99 N.J. 8 , 489 A.2d 1148, 1155-56 (1985) (test contained "virtually the same factors" as the Chevron test); Gumee v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 55 N.Y.2d 184 , 448 N.Y.S.2d 145 , 433 N.E.2d 128, 130-31 (1982) (court used Chevron test to determine if state insurance law decision should be given retroactive effect); Fountain v. Fountain, 214 Va. 347 , 200 S.E.2d 513, 514-15 (1973) (explained that "consideration should be given to the purpose of the new rule, the extent of the reliance on the old rule, and the effect on the administration of justice of a retroactive appli 1992Ass'n v. Board of Educ, 99 N.J. 8 , 489 A.2d 1148, 1155-56 (1985) (test contained "virtually the same factors" as the Chevron test); Gumee v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 55 N.Y.2d 184 , 448 N.Y.S.2d 145 , 433 N.E.2d 128, 130-31 (1982) (court used Chevron test to determine if state insurance law decision should be given retroactive effect); Fountain v. Fountain, 214 Va. 347 , 200 S.E.2d 513, 514-15 (1973) (explained that "consideration should be given to the purpose of the new rule, the extent of the reliance on the old rule, and the effect on the administration of justice of a retroactive appli | 1 | 1 |
Stroh Brewery Co. v. Director of New Mexico Department of Alcoholic Beverage Controlgreen2 sentences1992In Beam the Court had an opportunity to say that the rule of Chevron should no longer be applied in civil cases and declined to do so." Swanson v. State, 329 N.C. 576 , 407 S.E.2d 791, 795 (1991); see Stroh Brewery Co. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 112 N.M. 468 , 816 P.2d 1090, 1093-94 (1991). [36] Conflict exists among the various courts that use the Chevron test concerning the weight each Chevron factor should be given in applying the test. 1992In Beam the Court had an opportunity to say that the rule of Chevron should no longer be applied in civil cases and declined to do so." Swanson v. State, 329 N.C. 576 , 407 S.E.2d 791, 795 (1991); see Stroh Brewery Co. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 112 N.M. 468 , 816 P.2d 1090, 1093-94 (1991). [36] Conflict exists among the various courts that use the Chevron test concerning the weight each Chevron factor should be given in applying the test. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Keller v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2006Our consideration of Chevron’s challenge is guided by the supreme court’s decision in City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex.2005). 2006Our consideration of Chevron's challenge is guided by the supreme court's decision in City of Keller v. Wilson , 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005). | 5 | 2006–2006 |
Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District v. Edgewood Independent School District
green
2 sentences2015We adopted the Chevron test in Edgewood III and elected to apply our decision in that case declaring the State’s public school finance system unconstitutional prospectively only. 826 S.W.2d at 521 . 2015We adopted the Chevron test in Edgewood III and elected to apply our decision in that case declaring the State’s public school finance system unconstitutional prospectively only. 826 S.W.2d at 521 . | 4 | 1993–2015 |
Searsy v. Commercial Trading Corp.
green
2 sentences2015First, our decision in this case does not “establish a new principle of law” by “overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed.” The Texas Securities Act has existed since 1957, and in 1977 we announced in Searsy that we must look to federal cases and other authorities, which “broadly construe” the term “investment contract.” 560 S.W.2d at 639 . 2015First, our decision in this case does not “establish a new principle of law” by “overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed.” The Texas Securities Act has existed since 1957, and in 1977 we announced in Searsy that we must look to federal cases and other authorities, which “broadly construe” the term “investment contract.” 560 S.W.2d at 639 . | 3 | 2015–2015 |
Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
red
2 sentences2016Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Chevron doctrine ( 467 U.S. 837 ; Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (No. 82-1005); June 25, 1984), the aforementioned SIP narrative becomes equivalent to TCEQ regulations. 2011First, the court must consider whether Congress has “directly spoken to the precise question at issue.” Id. at 842 , 104 S.Ct. 2778 . | 2 | 2011–2016 |
Tyler v. Hennepin County
green
1 sentence2025TPWD aimed its sites on Young’s breeder deer, ranch, and business, as well as those of other Texas deer breeders.2 TPWD’s 1 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) (abandoning Chevron doctrine as “fundamentally misguided,” demanding deference to agency-based statutory interpretation); Tyler v. Hennepin Cnty., Minn., 598 U.S. 631 (2023) (rejecting Minnesota’s attempt to “legislate away” private citizens’ vested property rights and reminding States that state legislation cannot override federal and state civil liberties demanding due process and protecting private property righ | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
green
1 sentence2025TPWD aimed its sites on Young’s breeder deer, ranch, and business, as well as those of other Texas deer breeders.2 TPWD’s 1 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) (abandoning Chevron doctrine as “fundamentally misguided,” demanding deference to agency-based statutory interpretation); Tyler v. Hennepin Cnty., Minn., 598 U.S. 631 (2023) (rejecting Minnesota’s attempt to “legislate away” private citizens’ vested property rights and reminding States that state legislation cannot override federal and state civil liberties demanding due process and protecting private property righ | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Southland Royalty Co. v. Pan American Petroleum Corp.
green
1 sentence2015Southland, 378 S.W.2d at 53–54. 3 Attached as Exhibit 4 to Chevron's brief. 4 Water flooding is a method of secondary recovery of oil “in which water is injected into an oil reservoir for the purpose of washing the oil out of the reservoir rock and into the bore of a producing well.” Williams and Meyers, MANUAL OF OIL AND GAS TERMS, (8th ed. 1991). 5 The royalty owners also point to a “gas-oil ratio” showing that one well produced as much as 85,000 cubic feet of gas per barrel of oil. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Quantum Chemical Corp. v. Toennies
green
1 sentence2008See Burdine , 450 U.S. at 254, 101 S. Ct. at 1094; Quantum , 47 S.W.3d at 477 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson
red
2 sentences1992Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-07 , 92 S.Ct. 349, 355 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971). [34] A number of states have used the *519 Chevron test in resolving their own prospectivity questions. [35] We have applied the test in matters involving federal constitutional law. 1992Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-07 , 92 S.Ct. 349, 355 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971). [34] A number of states have used the *519 Chevron test in resolving their own prospectivity questions. [35] We have applied the test in matters involving federal constitutional law. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Southwest Weather Research, Inc. v. Jones green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.