23 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1952–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Enserch Corp. v. Parkergreen2 sentences2022Rather than misnomer, this case is one of misidentification: “A misnomer differs from a misidentification.” In re Greater Houston Orthopaedic Specialists, Inc., 295 S.W.3d 323, 325 (Tex. 2009) (per curiam) (citing Enserch Corp. v. Parker, 794 S.W.2d 2, 4 (Tex. 1990)). 2017“If ... the plaintiff is mistaken as to which of two defendants is the correct one and there is actually existing a corporation with the name of the erroneously named defendant (misidentification), then the plaintiff has sued the wrong party and limitations is not tolled.” Enserch, 794 S.W.2d at 5 . | 4 | 5 |
In Re Greater Houston Orthopaedic Specialists, Inc.green2 sentences2022Rather than misnomer, this case is one of misidentification: “A misnomer differs from a misidentification.” In re Greater Houston Orthopaedic Specialists, Inc., 295 S.W.3d 323, 325 (Tex. 2009) (per curiam) (citing Enserch Corp. v. Parker, 794 S.W.2d 2, 4 (Tex. 1990)). 2017Therefore, the misnomer exception does not apply. 6 Suing the wrong party through misidentification usually has harsh consequences, See In re Greater Houston Orthopaedic Specialists, Inc., 295 S.W.3d 323, 325 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding) (per cu-riam). | 4 | 4 |
Maher v. Herrmangreen2 sentences2003Enserch Corp. v. Parker, 794 S.W.2d 2, 4-5 (Tex.1990); Maher v. Herrman, 69 S.W.3d 332, 338 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2002, pet. denied). 2003Enserch Corp. v. Parker , 794 S.W.2d 2, 4-5 (Tex. 1990); Maher v. Herrman , 69 S.W.3d 332, 338 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2002, pet. denied). | 3 | 3 |
Marez v. Moeckgreen2 sentences2024See Marez, 608 S.W.2d at 741–42. 2017See Brown, 507 S.W.3d at 775 (suing actual driver’s son was not misnomer); Fleener, 62 S.W.3d at 286 n.2 (same with actual driver’s mother); Cortinas, 851 S.W.2d at 326-27 (same with actual driver’s parents); Marez, 608 S.W.2d at 742 (same with actual driver’s father). | 2 | 2 |
Walker v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2010See id. 2010See id. | 2 | 2 |
Diamond v. Eighth Avenue 92, L.C.green2 sentences2005See Diamond, 105 S.W.3d at 695 . 3. 2005See Diamond, 105 S.W.3d at 695 . 3. | 2 | 2 |
Hill Country Spring Water of Texas, Inc. v. Kruggreen2 sentences2004See, e.g., Hill Country, 773 S.W.2d at 640-41 (applying misnomer doctrine, under different factual circumstances, and upholding foreign judgment). 2004See, e.g. , Hill Country , 773 S.W.2d at 640–41 (applying misnomer doctrine, under different factual circumstances, and upholding foreign judgment). | 2 | 2 |
Landreth v. Las Brisas Council of Co-Owners, Inc.green1 sentence2020See Landreth, 285 S.W.3d at 499-500 ; see also Crosstex Energy Servs, L.P., 430 S.W.3d at 395 . | 1 | 1 |
Crosstex Energy Services, L.P. v. Pro Plus, Inc.green1 sentence2020See Landreth, 285 S.W.3d at 499-500 ; see also Crosstex Energy Servs, L.P., 430 S.W.3d at 395 . | 1 | 1 |
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio v. Baileygreen1 sentence2017See id. (“Misnomer is an exception, misidentification a more limited one.”). | 1 | 1 |
Cortinas v. Wilsongreen1 sentence2017See Brown, 507 S.W.3d at 775 (suing actual driver’s son was not misnomer); Fleener, 62 S.W.3d at 286 n.2 (same with actual driver’s mother); Cortinas, 851 S.W.2d at 326-27 (same with actual driver’s parents); Marez, 608 S.W.2d at 742 (same with actual driver’s father). | 1 | 1 |
Vanessa Brown v. Sebastian Valiyaparampilgreen1 sentence2017See Brown, 507 S.W.3d at 775 (suing actual driver’s son was not misnomer); Fleener, 62 S.W.3d at 286 n.2 (same with actual driver’s mother); Cortinas, 851 S.W.2d at 326-27 (same with actual driver’s parents); Marez, 608 S.W.2d at 742 (same with actual driver’s father). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Adams v. Consolidated Underwriters
green
2 sentences1996Adams , 124 S.W.2d at 841 . 1996Adams , 124 S.W.2d at 841 . | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Wood v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.
green
1 sentence2024Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Womack MacHine Supply Co. of Houston v. Fannin Bank
green
1 sentence2018Supply Co. of Hous. v. Fannin Bank, 504 S.W.2d 827 (Tex. 1974) (holding that limitations period was tolled by the filing of suit in which the plaintiff was misnamed). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Ameripath, Inc. and DFW 5.01(a) Corporation v. Steven Hebert M.D.
green
1 sentence2018Id. at 329 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Fleener v. Williams
green
1 sentence2017See Brown, 507 S.W.3d at 775 (suing actual driver’s son was not misnomer); Fleener, 62 S.W.3d at 286 n.2 (same with actual driver’s mother); Cortinas, 851 S.W.2d at 326-27 (same with actual driver’s parents); Marez, 608 S.W.2d at 742 (same with actual driver’s father). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Dougherty v. Gifford
green
1 sentence1998Id. 3 The majority states “the question before us is whether, in the light of the restrictive language in section 10.01, either the doctrines of misnomer or assumed name can toll the limitations period contained in the Act.” In framing the issue, the majority incorrectly concludes rule 28 falls within the doctrine of misnomer. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Abilene Independent Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Williams
green
1 sentence1956It was there stated [ 111 Tex. 102 , 229 S.W. 848 ] : “The misnomer of a corporation defendant has no different effect from the misnomer of an individual defendant. * * * The misnomer of either, which cannot mislead, merely entitles the defendant to abate the proceeding until the misnomer be corrected.” (Citing cases.) We think the statement has some significance here. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
J. S. Abercrombie Co. v. Hagen
neutral
1 sentence1952S. Abercrombie Company v. Hagen, Tex.Civ.App., 238 S.W.2d 239 ; Abrams v. General Financial Corporation, 274 App.Div. 756 , 79 N.Y.S.2d 368 ; American Indemnity Company v. Ernst & Ernst, Tex.Civ.App., 106 S.W.2d 763 ; Article 5526, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes 1948; Bogart v. George K. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
American Indemnity Co. v. Ernst & Ernst
green
1 sentence1952S. Abercrombie Company v. Hagen, Tex.Civ.App., 238 S.W.2d 239 ; Abrams v. General Financial Corporation, 274 App.Div. 756 , 79 N.Y.S.2d 368 ; American Indemnity Company v. Ernst & Ernst, Tex.Civ.App., 106 S.W.2d 763 ; Article 5526, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes 1948; Bogart v. George K. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Abrams v. General Financial Corp.
neutral
2 sentences1952S. Abercrombie Company v. Hagen, Tex.Civ.App., 238 S.W.2d 239 ; Abrams v. General Financial Corporation, 274 App.Div. 756 , 79 N.Y.S.2d 368 ; American Indemnity Company v. Ernst & Ernst, Tex.Civ.App., 106 S.W.2d 763 ; Article 5526, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes 1948; Bogart v. George K. 1952S. Abercrombie Company v. Hagen, Tex.Civ.App., 238 S.W.2d 239 ; Abrams v. General Financial Corporation, 274 App.Div. 756 , 79 N.Y.S.2d 368 ; American Indemnity Company v. Ernst & Ernst, Tex.Civ.App., 106 S.W.2d 763 ; Article 5526, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes 1948; Bogart v. George K. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.