22 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Gamblegreen2 sentences2022Indeed, we are tasked—when exercising equitable powers to resolve Election Code violations—to “balance competing equities.” In re Gamble, 71 S.W.3d 313, 317 (Tex. 2002) (orig. proceeding). 2009Code Ann. § 273.081 ; In re Gamble, 71 S.W.3d 313, 317 (Tex.2002) (“As is evident, the Legislature has specifically called upon the courts [under section 273.081] to exercise their equitable powers to resolve election code violations.”); Triantaphyllis v. Gamble, 93 S.W.3d 398, 401, 408 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (injunctive relief under section 273.081 concerning alleged election code violations upheld). | 4 | 4 |
Triantaphyllis v. Gamblegreen2 sentences2009Code Ann. § 273.081 ; In re Gamble, 71 S.W.3d 313, 317 (Tex.2002) (“As is evident, the Legislature has specifically called upon the courts [under section 273.081] to exercise their equitable powers to resolve election code violations.”); Triantaphyllis v. Gamble, 93 S.W.3d 398, 401, 408 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (injunctive relief under section 273.081 concerning alleged election code violations upheld). 2009Code Ann. § 273.081 ; In re Gamble, 71 S.W.3d 313, 317 (Tex.2002) ("As is evident, the Legislature has specifically called upon the courts [under section 273.081] to exercise their equitable powers to resolve election code violations."); Triantaphyllis v. Gamble, 93 S.W.3d 398, 401, 408 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (injunctive relief under section 273.081 concerning alleged election code violations upheld). | 3 | 3 |
Burks v. Yarbroughgreen2 sentences2023See Burks v. Yarbrough, 157 S.W.3d 876, 880 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.). 2021Thus, the statute “allows an interested person to seek an order to compel action, an order to prevent action or threatened action, or both if necessary.” Town of Shady Shores, 590 S.W.3d at 554; see Campbell v. Wilder, 487 S.W.3d 146 , 153–54 22 (Tex. 2016); see also Burks v. Yarbrough, 157 S.W.3d 876 , 878–79 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.). “[TOMA] thus contains a clear and unambiguous waiver of immunity from suits seeking injunctive and mandamus relief.” Town of Shady Shores, 590 S.W.3d at 554; see Carowest Land, Ltd. v. City of New Braunfels, 615 S.W.3d 156 , 158 (Tex. 2020) | 2 | 2 |
City of Abilene v. Shackelfordgreen2 sentences2005Appellees contend that an “interested person” under the Open Meetings Act must still demonstrate a particularized injury, relying on City of Abilene v. Shackelford, 572 S.W.2d 742, 745-46 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1978), rev’d on other grounds, 585 S.W.2d 665 (Tex.1979). 2005Appellees contend that an “interested person” under the Open Meetings Act must still demonstrate a particularized injury, relying on City of Abilene v. Shackelford , 572 S.W.2d 742 , 745–46 (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 2 |
Odell Campbell, Shawnta Renea Coleman, Thomas Ray Robertson, Diana J. Najera, Scott Wiernik, Tairhonda McAfee and Marybeth Lynn Jewell v. Thomas A. Wilder, Tarrant County District Clerkgreen2 sentences2021Thus, the statute “allows an interested person to seek an order to compel action, an order to prevent action or threatened action, or both if necessary.” Town of Shady Shores, 590 S.W.3d at 554; see Campbell v. Wilder, 487 S.W.3d 146 , 153–54 22 (Tex. 2016); see also Burks v. Yarbrough, 157 S.W.3d 876 , 878–79 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.). “[TOMA] thus contains a clear and unambiguous waiver of immunity from suits seeking injunctive and mandamus relief.” Town of Shady Shores, 590 S.W.3d at 554; see Carowest Land, Ltd. v. City of New Braunfels, 615 S.W.3d 156 , 158 (Tex. 2020) 2021The statute “allows an interested person to seek an order to compel action, an order to prevent action or threatened action, or both if necessary.” Town of Shady Shores, 590 S.W.3d at 554; see Campbell v. Wilder, 487 S.W.3d 146 , 153–54 (Tex. 2016); see also Burks v. Yarbrough, 157 S.W.3d 876 , 878–79 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Max Grossman v. Mark Wolfe, Executive Director, Texas Historical Commissiongreen1 sentence2021See Wolfe, 578 S.W.3d at 257-58 . | 1 | 1 |
BD. OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY v. Bassgreen1 sentence2019GOV’T CODE ANN. § 551.142(a); see Bass, 366 S.W.3d at 760 . | 1 | 1 |
Schmitz v. Denton Cnty. Cowboy Churchgreen1 sentence2019See Schmitz, 550 S.W.3d at 355 ; Town of Shady Shores, 544 S.W.3d at 437 . | 1 | 1 |
Board of Trustees of the Austin Independent School District v. Cox Enterprises, Inc.green1 sentence2016See Bd. of Trs. v. Cox Enters., Inc., 679 S.W.2d 86, 88 (Tex. App. - Texarkana 1984) (recognizing declaratory judgment action as an additional option to challenge violations of the Act); see also TEX. | 1 | 1 |
City of San Antonio v. Hardeegreen1 sentence2005Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 551.142 (Vernon 2004); see also Hardee, 70 S.W.3d at 212-13 . | 1 | 1 |
Hays County Water Planning Partnership v. Hays Countygreen1 sentence2002See Hays County Water Planning P'ship v. Hays County, 41 S.W.3d 174, 176-78 (Tex.App.-Austin 2001, pet. denied). 4 ."An interested person, including a member of the news media, may bring an action by mandamus or injunction to stop, prevent, or reverse a violation or threatened violation of this chapter by members of a governmental body.” Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 551.142 (West 1994). 5 . | 1 | 1 |
Carr v. Bell Savings & Loan Ass'ngreen1 sentence2002See, e.g., Carr v. Bell Sav. & Loan Ass=n, 786 S.W.2d 761, 765 (Tex. App.CTexarkana 1990, writ denied).14 Invalidating the Application based on the Authority=s actions would not provide a method of 13 Section 551.142 of the Act states in part that an interested person Amay bring an action by mandamus or injunction to stop, prevent, or reverse a violation or threatened violation of this chapter by members of a governmental body.@ Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. ' 551.142(a) (West 1994). 14 In Carr, the appellant attacked the decision of one agency, the Appraisal Review Board, based on deficiencies in meet | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cox Enterprises v. Bd. of Tr. of Austin ISD
green
2 sentences2001The act also provides for mandamus or injunctive relief “to stop, prevent, or reverse a violation or threatened violation of [the act] by members of a governmental body.” Id. § 551.142(a). 5 The act “is intended to safeguard the public’s interest in knowing the workings of its governmental bodies.” Cox Enters., 706 S.W.2d at 960 . 2001The act also provides for mandamus or injunctive relief "to stop, prevent, or reverse a violation or threatened violation of [the act] by members of a governmental body." Id. § 551.142(a). (5) The act "is intended to safeguard the public's interest in knowing the workings of its governmental bodies." Cox Enters. , 706 S.W.2d at 960 . | 3 | 2001–2001 |
Eubank v. City of Richmond
green
2 sentences2015Eubank, 226 U.S. at 141-44 . 16 48 b) Section 273.081 Section 273.081 states that "[a] person who is being harmed or is in danger ofbeing harmed by a violation or threatened violation of this code is entitled to appropriate injunctive relief to prevent the violation from continuing or occurring." I d. § 273.081. 2014Eubank, 226 U.S. at 141–44. 16 b) Section 273.081 Section 273.081 states that “[a] person who is being harmed or is in danger of being harmed by a violation or threatened violation of this code is entitled to appropriate injunctive relief to prevent the violation from continuing or occurring.” Id. § 273.081. | 2 | 2014–2015 |
Wichita Falls State Hospital v. Taylor
green
1 sentence2020“The Open Meetings Act thus contains a clear and unambiguous waiver of immunity from suits seeking injunctive and mandamus relief.” Id. (citing Taylor, 106 S.W.3d at 696 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Town of Shady Shores v. Sarah Swanson
green
1 sentence2019See Schmitz, 550 S.W.3d at 355 ; Town of Shady Shores, 544 S.W.3d at 437 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
City of Farmers Branch v. Ramos
green
1 sentence2019The City’s argument is premised on TOMA section 551.142, which permits suits “to stop, prevent, or reverse a violation or threatened violation of this chapter by members of a governmental body,” and TOMA section 551.141, which provides that “[a]n action taken by a governmental body in violation of this chapter is voidable.” The City argues that the city council, not the City, is the “governmental body” and the “members” are the individual council members.1 The City 1 To the extent the parties have argued that our opinion in City of Farmers Branch v. Ramos, 235 S.W.3d 462 , 465–66 (Tex. App.—Da | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Harris County Emergency Service District 1 v. Harris County Emergency Corps
green
2 sentences2009As authority, we cited section 551.142(a), which authorizes “[a]n interested person ... [to] bring an action by mandamus or injunction to stop, prevent, or reverse a violation or threatened violation of the TOMA.” Id. (quoting 551.142(a)) (emphasis added). 2009As authority, we cited section 551.142(a), which authorizes "[a]n interested person . . . [to] bring an action by mandamus or injunction to stop, prevent, or reverse a violation or threatened violation of the TOMA." Id. (quoting 551.142(a)) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Shackelford v. City of Abilene
green
1 sentence2005Appellees contend that an “interested person” under the Open Meetings Act must still demonstrate a particularized injury, relying on City of Abilene v. Shackelford, 572 S.W.2d 742, 745-46 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1978), rev’d on other grounds, 585 S.W.2d 665 (Tex.1979). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.