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.
22 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1973–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wyatt v. Shaw Plumbing Co.green2 sentences2007Wyatt v. Shaw Plumbing Co. , 760 S.W.2d 245, 247 (Tex. 1988). 2003Wyatt v. Shaw Plumbing Co. , 760 S.W.2d 245, 247 (Tex. 1988). | 5 | 5 |
Carr v. Brashergreen2 sentences2007Carr , 776 S.W.2d at 569 . 2007Carr, 776 S.W.2d at 569 . | 1 | 3 |
Cook v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Nevertheless, despite offering an explanation that better fit with other evidence, the grand jury testimonies of Hoehn and the Dykes brothers were not disclosed to Cook’s defense team until years after the first trial. 210209F Problems with the Crime Classification and Criminal Profile The State’s efforts to use crime classification to show that Cook fit the resulting criminal profile were also inconsistent. 211 Law enforcement classified the murder as a “lust 210F murder” of the “disorganized” type—a subcategory of sexual homicides—after noting the nature and manner of violence distributed ag 2002Id. | 1 | 2 |
Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauckgreen1 sentence2025MHHS explained that in Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex. 1985), “the Texas Supreme Court recognized a very narrow exception to the employment-at-will doctrine: ‘That narrow exception covers only the discharge of an employee for the sole reason that the employee refused to perform an illegal act.’” Cingular Wireless, L.L.C. v. Lee, No. 13-07-132-CV, 2009 WL 866796 , at *4 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Apr. 2, 2009, pet. denied) (mem. op.). | 1 | 1 |
Vinson v. Browngreen1 sentence2021See Pickett, 223 S.W.2d at 223 (holding extrinsic evidence must reveal “only one tract of land answering the description in the memorandum”); Vinson v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 221, 227 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.) (“If enough appears in the [document’s] description so that a person familiar with We conclude the trial court erred in granting Cimarex’s second motion for summary judgment but did not err in denying Cook’s motion for partial summary judgment. 4 Cook challenges the district court’s ruling that sustained Cimarex’s objections under the parol evidence rule. | 1 | 1 |
Pickett v. Bishopgreen1 sentence2021See Pickett, 223 S.W.2d at 223 (holding extrinsic evidence must reveal “only one tract of land answering the description in the memorandum”); Vinson v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 221, 227 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.) (“If enough appears in the [document’s] description so that a person familiar with We conclude the trial court erred in granting Cimarex’s second motion for summary judgment but did not err in denying Cook’s motion for partial summary judgment. 4 Cook challenges the district court’s ruling that sustained Cimarex’s objections under the parol evidence rule. | 1 | 1 |
The City of El Paso v. Lilli M. Heinrichgreen1 sentence2017The Texas Supreme Court “has long recognized that governmental immunity does not bar claims alleging that a government officer acted ultra vires, or without legal authority, in carrying out his duties.” Houston Belt, 487 S.W.3d at 157-58 . “ ‘To fall within this ultra vires exception,’ however, ‘a suit must not complain of a government officer’s exercise of discretion, but rather must allege, and ultimately prove, that the officer acted without legal authority or failed to perform a purely ministerial act.’ ” Id. at 161 (quoting City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 372 (Tex. 2009)). | 1 | 1 |
Cook v. Stategreen2 sentences2016In Cook v. State, we wrote that when determining whether the evidence supports a deadly weapon finding in cases involving motor vehicles, courts conduct a two-part test. 328 S.W.3d 95, 100 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2010, pet. refd). 2016In Cook v. State, we wrote that when determining whether the evidence supports a deadly weapon finding in cases involving motor vehicles, courts conduct a two-part test. 328 S.W.3d 95, 100 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2010, pet. refd). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cook v. Cameron
green
2 sentences2003Id. at 139 . 2003Id. at 139 . | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Cook v. Smith
green
1 sentence2024Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Wellisch v. United Services Automobile Ass'n
green
1 sentence2019The Texas Insurance Code “establishes procedures for the prompt payment of insurance claims.” Id. at 57 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Sullivan v. Tex. Ethics Comm'n
green
1 sentence2019Riggs & Ray, 2019 WL 4200009 , at *6 (pretermitting remaining issues and cross- appeal after concluding TCPA did not apply); Sullivan v. Tex. Ethics Comm’n, 551 S.W.3d 848 , 856 n.6 (Tex. App.—Austin 2018, pet. denied) (“Because we hold that the TCPA does not apply, we do not reach the second step in the TCPA analysis of whether [the non-movant] met its burden to prove a prima facie case.”). –7– CONCLUSION We affirm the trial court’s order denying Cook’s motion to dismiss. /Leslie Osborne/ LESLIE OSBORNE JUSTICE 190091F.P05 –8– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT BYRO | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Co., Bnsf Railway Co., and Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. City of Houston, Texas and Daniel Krueger, in His Official Capacity as Director of Public Works and Engineering
green
2 sentences2017The Texas Supreme Court “has long recognized that governmental immunity does not bar claims alleging that a government officer acted ultra vires, or without legal authority, in carrying out his duties.” Houston Belt, 487 S.W.3d at 157-58 . “ ‘To fall within this ultra vires exception,’ however, ‘a suit must not complain of a government officer’s exercise of discretion, but rather must allege, and ultimately prove, that the officer acted without legal authority or failed to perform a purely ministerial act.’ ” Id. at 161 (quoting City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 372 (Tex. 2009)). 2017The Texas Supreme Court “has long recognized that governmental immunity does not bar claims alleging that a government officer acted ultra vires, or without legal authority, in carrying out his duties.” Houston Belt, 487 S.W.3d at 157-58 . “ ‘To fall within this ultra vires exception,’ however, ‘a suit must not complain of a government officer’s exercise of discretion, but rather must allege, and ultimately prove, that the officer acted without legal authority or failed to perform a purely ministerial act.’ ” Id. at 161 (quoting City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 372 (Tex. 2009)). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Fingold v. Cook
green
1 sentence2012Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Cameron v. Cameron
green
2 sentences1987In the concluding sentences of Cameron, we "render[ed] judgment awarding Sue Cameron her share of Military Retirement...." 641 S.W.2d at 223 . 1987In the concluding sentences of Cameron, we “render[ed] judgment awarding Sue Cameron her share of Military Retirement....” 641 S.W.2d at 223 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Washington v. State
green
2 sentences1973Washington v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 484 S.W.2d 721 , cert. denied, 411 U.S. 921 , 93 S.Ct. 1555 , 36 L.Ed.2d 314 , quotes the rule of law relied upon from Cook v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 409 S.W.2d 857 , as follows: "It is a general rule that an accused cannot complain of the admission of testimony when he later testified on direct examination to substantially the same facts. " (Emphasis added.) This Court then applied the Cook rule to the facts in Washington, supra: "The record reflects that the appellant testified to substantially the same facts contained in his remarks to the officer, to-wit, tha 1973Washington v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 484 S.W.2d 721 , cert. denied, 411 U.S. 921 , 93 S.Ct. 1555 , 36 L.Ed.2d 314 , quotes the rule of law relied upon from Cook v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 409 S.W.2d 857 , as follows: "It is a general rule that an accused cannot complain of the admission of testimony when he later testified on direct examination to substantially the same facts. " (Emphasis added.) This Court then applied the Cook rule to the facts in Washington, supra: "The record reflects that the appellant testified to substantially the same facts contained in his remarks to the officer, to-wit, tha | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Cook v. State
green
2 sentences1973Washington v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 484 S.W.2d 721 , cert. denied, 411 U.S. 921 , 93 S.Ct. 1555 , 36 L.Ed.2d 314 , quotes the rule of law relied upon from Cook v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 409 S.W.2d 857 , as follows: "It is a general rule that an accused cannot complain of the admission of testimony when he later testified on direct examination to substantially the same facts. " (Emphasis added.) This Court then applied the Cook rule to the facts in Washington, supra: "The record reflects that the appellant testified to substantially the same facts contained in his remarks to the officer, to-wit, tha 1973Washington v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 484 S.W.2d 721 , cert. denied, 411 U.S. 921 , 93 S.Ct. 1555 , 36 L.Ed.2d 314 , quotes the rule of law relied upon from Cook v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 409 S.W.2d 857 , as follows: "It is a general rule that an accused cannot complain of the admission of testimony when he later testified on direct examination to substantially the same facts. " (Emphasis added.) This Court then applied the Cook rule to the facts in Washington, supra: "The record reflects that the appellant testified to substantially the same facts contained in his remarks to the officer, to-wit, tha | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Thomas v. Slayton
green
2 sentences1973Washington v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 484 S.W.2d 721 , cert. denied, 411 U.S. 921 , 93 S.Ct. 1555 , 36 L.Ed.2d 314 , quotes the rule of law relied upon from Cook v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 409 S.W.2d 857 , as follows: "It is a general rule that an accused cannot complain of the admission of testimony when he later testified on direct examination to substantially the same facts. " (Emphasis added.) This Court then applied the Cook rule to the facts in Washington, supra: "The record reflects that the appellant testified to substantially the same facts contained in his remarks to the officer, to-wit, tha 1973Washington v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 484 S.W.2d 721 , cert. denied, 411 U.S. 921 , 93 S.Ct. 1555 , 36 L.Ed.2d 314 , quotes the rule of law relied upon from Cook v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 409 S.W.2d 857 , as follows: "It is a general rule that an accused cannot complain of the admission of testimony when he later testified on direct examination to substantially the same facts. " (Emphasis added.) This Court then applied the Cook rule to the facts in Washington, supra: "The record reflects that the appellant testified to substantially the same facts contained in his remarks to the officer, to-wit, tha | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Lindsey v. California
green
2 sentences1973Washington v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 484 S.W.2d 721 , cert. denied, 411 U.S. 921 , 93 S.Ct. 1555 , 36 L.Ed.2d 314 , quotes the rule of law relied upon from Cook v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 409 S.W.2d 857 , as follows: "It is a general rule that an accused cannot complain of the admission of testimony when he later testified on direct examination to substantially the same facts. " (Emphasis added.) This Court then applied the Cook rule to the facts in Washington, supra: "The record reflects that the appellant testified to substantially the same facts contained in his remarks to the officer, to-wit, tha 1973Washington v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 484 S.W.2d 721 , cert. denied, 411 U.S. 921 , 93 S.Ct. 1555 , 36 L.Ed.2d 314 , quotes the rule of law relied upon from Cook v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 409 S.W.2d 857 , as follows: "It is a general rule that an accused cannot complain of the admission of testimony when he later testified on direct examination to substantially the same facts. " (Emphasis added.) This Court then applied the Cook rule to the facts in Washington, supra: "The record reflects that the appellant testified to substantially the same facts contained in his remarks to the officer, to-wit, tha | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Rozelle v. Connecticut General Life Insurance
green
2 sentences1973Washington v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 484 S.W.2d 721 , cert. denied, 411 U.S. 921 , 93 S.Ct. 1555 , 36 L.Ed.2d 314 , quotes the rule of law relied upon from Cook v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 409 S.W.2d 857 , as follows: "It is a general rule that an accused cannot complain of the admission of testimony when he later testified on direct examination to substantially the same facts. " (Emphasis added.) This Court then applied the Cook rule to the facts in Washington, supra: "The record reflects that the appellant testified to substantially the same facts contained in his remarks to the officer, to-wit, tha 1973Washington v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 484 S.W.2d 721 , cert. denied, 411 U.S. 921 , 93 S.Ct. 1555 , 36 L.Ed.2d 314 , quotes the rule of law relied upon from Cook v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 409 S.W.2d 857 , as follows: "It is a general rule that an accused cannot complain of the admission of testimony when he later testified on direct examination to substantially the same facts. " (Emphasis added.) This Court then applied the Cook rule to the facts in Washington, supra: "The record reflects that the appellant testified to substantially the same facts contained in his remarks to the officer, to-wit, tha | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.