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.
23 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1982–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Barbernellgreen2 sentences2016See Barbemell, 257 S.W.3d at 256 . 3 I would therefore conclude that the trial court erred in granting Nelson’s motion to quash the amended information and would sustain the State’s issue, reverse the trial court’s order granting the motion'to quash, and remand this case. . 2016See Barbernell, 257 S.W.3d at 256 .3 I would therefore conclude that the trial court erred in granting Nelson’s motion to quash the amended information and would sustain the State’s issue, reverse the trial court’s order granting the motion to quash, and remand this case. | 2 | 2 |
Nelson v. Krusengreen2 sentences2003However, the nature of the Nelson’s claim made it unreasonable to bring suit within two years because it “would require the Nelsons to do the impossible — to sue before they had any reason to know they should sue.” Id. at 923. 2003However, the nature of the Nelson's claim made it unreasonable to bring suit within two years because it "would require the Nelsons to do the impossible--to sue before they had any reason to know they should sue." Id. at 923. | 2 | 2 |
Vance v. My Apartment Steak House of San Antonio, Inc.green1 sentence2022“In a substantial performance claim, the contractor must prove three elements to prevail: its substantial performance, the amount unpaid under the contract, and ‘the cost of remedying the defects due to his errors or omissions.’” Id., quoting Vance v. My Apartment Steak House of San Antonio, Inc., 677 S.W.2d 480, 483 (Tex. 1984). 9 But for much the same reasons already noted, the record does not support Nelson’s claim of substantial performance. | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.green1 sentence2021In this case, Nelson’s brief cites only one authority, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986), which was cited for the proposition that “a fact is material if a dispute over the fact ‘might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.’” Nelson cited no authorities concerning the grounds Egyptian Magic asserted for summary judgment. | 1 | 1 |
William Carl Wooley v. Randy Schaffergreen1 sentence2016See Wooley v. Schaffer, 447 S.W.3d 71, 75 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Lions Eye Bank of Texas v. Perrygreen1 sentence2016SCI expressly premised the no-evidence ground on the holding in Lions Eye Bank of Texas v. Perry, 56 S.W.3d 872, 877 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Kothe v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See id. | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Martin , 265 S.W.3d at 445 . | 1 | 1 |
Nelson v. Stategreen2 sentences1995See Nelson, 855 S.W.2d at 30. 1995See Nelson, 855 S.W.2d at 30. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Baylor Scott and White, Hillcrest Medical Center v. Ruthen James Weems Iii
green
2 sentences2025She supports this conclusion by citing Scott v. Weems, 575 S.W.3d 357 (Tex. 2019), wherein the Texas Supreme Court held that the record supplementation rules, such as Tex. R. 2025She supports this conclusion by citing Scott v. Weems, 575 S.W.3d 357 (Tex. 2019), wherein the Texas Supreme Court held that the record supplementation rules, such as Tex. R. | 3 | 2025–2025 |
Rhode Island v. Innis
green
2 sentences2015The court noted that it was “crucial” to its findings that it believed Nelson to be “educated” and “intelligent.” As such, the court did not believe “that the comments did elicit her reinitiating the conversation.” The court further found that the investigators’ conversation was “not intended to get her to start talking,” since the officers “had been talking to her many, many times before and none of the other methodologies seemed to get her to really talk or say too much.” In conclusion, the court found “the defendant did reinitiate conversation,” that in the fourth interview Nelson “was once 2015The court noted that it was “crucial” to its findings that it believed Nelson to be “educated” and “intelligent.” As such, the court did not believe “that the comments did elicit her reinitiating the conversation.” The court further found that the investigators’ conversation was “not intended to get her to start talking,” since the officers “had been talking to her many, many times before and none of the other methodologies seemed to get her to really talk or say too much.” In conclusion, the court found “the defendant did reinitiate conversation,” that in the fourth interview Nelson “was once | 3 | 2015–2015 |
Kass v. State
green
2 sentences2016Because we conclude that the State’s pleadings are insufficient in light of the Court of Criminal Appeals’s decision in Kass v. State, 642 S.W.2d 463 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) (op. on reh’g), we cannot, say that .the trial court, erred in granting Nelson’s motion to quash. 2016The focus of Nelson’s motion to quash was the amended information’s use of the words “sexual contact.” Nelson contended that, under Kass v. State, 642 S.W.2d 463 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) (op. on reh’g), the use of the words.“sexual contact” did not give Nelson notice of what “sexual contact” she was alleged to have solicited. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Financial Review Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005Co. of Am., Inc., 29 S.W.3d at 77 . 2005Co. of Am., Inc ., 29 S.W.3d at 77 . | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Martin v. Martin, Martin & Richards, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025In Martin, the trial court, without notice to the plaintiff, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment only four days after it had been filed. 989 S.W.2d at 358 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
City of Tyler v. Likes
green
1 sentence2018Nelson has not complained of this ruling. 962 S.W.2d 489 , 496 (Tex. 1997). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Cone v. Fagadau Energy Corp.
green
1 sentence2016We addressed a similar situation in dealing with a no-evidence motion for summary judgment in Cone v. Fagadau Energy Corp., 68 S.W.3d 147 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2001, pet. denied). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Bristol Hotel Asset Co.
green
1 sentence2015It was effective via substituted service.”) Recitations in the judgment will not prove service when the record contains no independent evidence of service, such as a return.” State v. Bristol Hotel Asset Co., 65 S.W.3d 638 , 642–43 (Tex. 2001) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Simmons v. United States
green
2 sentences1992On petition to this Court, the State cited Chavez as supporting the admissibility of the prior testimony; Nelson relied on Brumfield v. State, 445 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Crim.App.1969) (On State’s Motion for Rehearing) for the contrary 11 , and the limited purpose doctrine from Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 , 88 S.Ct. 967 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968). 1992On petition to this Court, the State cited Chavez as supporting the admissibility of the prior testimony; Nelson relied on Brumfield v. State, 445 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Crim.App.1969) (On State’s Motion for Rehearing) for the contrary 11 , and the limited purpose doctrine from Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 , 88 S.Ct. 967 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Brumfield v. State
green
2 sentences1992On petition to this Court, the State cited Chavez as supporting the admissibility of the prior testimony; Nelson relied on Brumfield v. State, 445 S.W.2d 732 (Tex. Crim.App.1969) (On State's Motion for Rehearing) for the contrary [11] and the limited purpose doctrine from Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 , 88 S.Ct. 967 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968). 1992On petition to this Court, the State cited Chavez as supporting the admissibility of the prior testimony; Nelson relied on Brumfield v. State, 445 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Crim.App.1969) (On State’s Motion for Rehearing) for the contrary 11 , and the limited purpose doctrine from Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 , 88 S.Ct. 967 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Christopher v. State
green
1 sentence1982The case at bar closely parallels the facts in Greer, Borner, Wood, and particularly Christopher v. State, 639 S.W.2d 932 (Tex. Cr.App.1982). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.