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.
21 Texas opinions name it 4 courts 1926–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugggreen2 sentences2026See Moncrief Oil, 414 S.W.3d at 157 (“[B]ut-for causation alone is insufficient.”); Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 588 (concluding that while Moki Mac’s promotional representations in Texas were “theoretically related” to plaintiff’s injury and death on Arizona hiking trail “in the sense that but for them he might not have been there” on hiking trail, representations were not sufficiently related to operative facts underlying plaintiff’s injury to justify exercise of specific personal jurisdiction); Guillory, 2023 WL 5615474 , at *12 n.8 (“While the November 2020 Houston meeting is ‘related to operat 2018See id. at 575–76. | 3 | 3 |
Spir Star AG v. Kimichgreen2 sentences2026According to the Texas Supreme Court, our “long-arm statute reaches as far as the federal constitutional requirements for due process will allow.” State v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, 669 S.W.3d 399 , 412 (Tex. 2023) (quoting Spir Star AG v. Kimich, 310 S.W.3d 868, 872 (Tex. 2010)). 9 The Texas Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in State v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, explaining that “[b]ecause the State’s after-sale tampering claims clearly arise out of the recall and service tampering itself—a direct causal relationship connects the litigation to the contacts—we need not determ 2018Id. | 1 | 2 |
Moncrief Oil International, Inc. v. Oao Gazprom, Gazprom Export, LLC, and Gazprom Marketing & Trading, Ltd.green1 sentence2026See Moncrief Oil, 414 S.W.3d at 157 (“[B]ut-for causation alone is insufficient.”); Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 588 (concluding that while Moki Mac’s promotional representations in Texas were “theoretically related” to plaintiff’s injury and death on Arizona hiking trail “in the sense that but for them he might not have been there” on hiking trail, representations were not sufficiently related to operative facts underlying plaintiff’s injury to justify exercise of specific personal jurisdiction); Guillory, 2023 WL 5615474 , at *12 n.8 (“While the November 2020 Houston meeting is ‘related to operat | 1 | 1 |
Jumana M. Barabarawi v. Mahaer Abu Rayyangreen1 sentence2024See In re Oates, 104 S.W.3d 571, 578 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2003, orig. proceeding) (“Significant connection jurisdiction should be employed only when Texas is not the home state and it appears that no other state could assert home state jurisdiction.”); Barabarawi v. Rayyan, 406 S.W.3d 767, 772 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (Significant connection jurisdiction “applies only if no other state can exercise home state jurisdiction, or if the state that can exercise home state jurisdiction has declined jurisdiction for other specified reasons.”) (citing TEX. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Oatesgreen1 sentence2024See In re Oates, 104 S.W.3d 571, 578 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2003, orig. proceeding) (“Significant connection jurisdiction should be employed only when Texas is not the home state and it appears that no other state could assert home state jurisdiction.”); Barabarawi v. Rayyan, 406 S.W.3d 767, 772 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (Significant connection jurisdiction “applies only if no other state can exercise home state jurisdiction, or if the state that can exercise home state jurisdiction has declined jurisdiction for other specified reasons.”) (citing TEX. | 1 | 1 |
Hufnagel v. Omega Service Industries, Inc.green1 sentence2009Indus., Inc. , 182 F.3d 340, 346 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing Harbor Tug and Barge Co. v. Papai , 520 U.S. 548, 555 , 117 S.Ct. 1535, 1540 , 137 L.Ed.2d 800 (1997)). | 1 | 1 |
County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allengreen2 sentences1990See Ulster County Court v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 , 99 S.Ct. 2213 , 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979); Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837 , 93 S.Ct. 2357 , 37 L.Ed.2d 380 (1973). “[T]o specify the procedural consequences of a presumption [and] to satisfy ... constitutional strictures,” the Legislature has enacted V.T.C.A. 1990See Ulster County Court v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 , 99 S.Ct. 2213 , 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979); Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837 , 93 S.Ct. 2357 , 37 L.Ed.2d 380 (1973). “[T]o specify the procedural consequences of a presumption [and] to satisfy ... constitutional strictures,” the Legislature has enacted V.T.C.A. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Wadegreen2 sentences1969See generally, 3 Wigmore, Evidence § 823 n. 5 at p. 339 (Chandbourne rev. 1970). [29] Urine specimens: Davis v. District of Columbia, 247 A.2d 417 (D.C.App.1968); United States v. Nesmith, 121 F.Supp. 758, 762 (Dist.Ct., D.C.1954); Voice examplars: United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 223 , 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1930 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 1155 (1967); Blood tests: Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). [30] Noted in 19 Tex.L.Rev. 480 (1941); 26 Wash.L.Q. 435 (1941); 15 U. of Cinn.L.Rev. 344 (1941). 1969See generally, 3 Wigmore, Evidence § 823 n. 5 at p. 339 (Chandbourne rev. 1970). [29] Urine specimens: Davis v. District of Columbia, 247 A.2d 417 (D.C.App.1968); United States v. Nesmith, 121 F.Supp. 758, 762 (Dist.Ct., D.C.1954); Voice examplars: United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 223 , 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1930 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 1155 (1967); Blood tests: Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). [30] Noted in 19 Tex.L.Rev. 480 (1941); 26 Wash.L.Q. 435 (1941); 15 U. of Cinn.L.Rev. 344 (1941). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Nesmithgreen1 sentence1969See generally, 3 Wigmore, Evidence § 823 n. 5 at p. 339 (Chandbourne rev. 1970). [29] Urine specimens: Davis v. District of Columbia, 247 A.2d 417 (D.C.App.1968); United States v. Nesmith, 121 F.Supp. 758, 762 (Dist.Ct., D.C.1954); Voice examplars: United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 223 , 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1930 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 1155 (1967); Blood tests: Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). [30] Noted in 19 Tex.L.Rev. 480 (1941); 26 Wash.L.Q. 435 (1941); 15 U. of Cinn.L.Rev. 344 (1941). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Willis v. State
green
2 sentences2013Id. 2007Id. 6 . | 3 | 1992–2013 |
Winfree v. Winfree
green
2 sentences1977Winfree v. Winfree, Tex.Civ.App., 139 S.W. 36 , wr. ref. 1977Winfree v. Winfree, Tex.Civ.App., 139 S.W. 36 , wr. ref. | 2 | 1964–1977 |
Millican v. McNeill
green
2 sentences1939They contend, however, that even though it were void so far as the minor was concerned, it nevertheless passed all title which Howell had, invoking in this connection the rule announced in Millican v. McNeill, 102 Texas 189 , 114 S. W. 106 , 21 L. 1939They contend, however, that even though it were void so far as the minor was concerned, it nevertheless passed all title which Howell had, invoking in this connection the rule announced in Millican v. McNeill, 102 Texas 189 , 114 S. W. 106 , 21 L. | 2 | 1939–1939 |
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist.
green
1 sentence2025The Court expressly warned that it was not “consider[ing] internet transactions, which may raise doctrinal questions of their own.” 592 U.S. at 366 n.4. 40 the forum state, the defendant’s in-state contacts will generally be insufficiently related to the operative facts of the plaintiff’s claim to satisfy” the substantial connection analysis. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Hilaire v. International Paper Realty Corp.
green
1 sentence2018Hewitt, 528 A.2d at 447–48. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Bellamy v. State
green
1 sentence2015Bellamy, 742 S.W.2d at 682–83. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Cadle v. Graubart
green
1 sentence2015The purposeful contacts upon which the Opinion relies are substantially connected to the operative facts of the litigation ........... 16 Prayer ....................................................................................................................... 18 i Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 19 Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................................ 20 ii Table of Authorities Cases BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
BMC Software Belgium, NV v. Marchand
green
1 sentence2015The purposeful contacts upon which the Opinion relies are substantially connected to the operative facts of the litigation ........... 16 Prayer ....................................................................................................................... 18 i Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 19 Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................................ 20 ii Table of Authorities Cases BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Brown v. General Brick Sales Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence2015The purposeful contacts upon which the Opinion relies are substantially connected to the operative facts of the litigation ........... 16 Prayer ....................................................................................................................... 18 i Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 19 Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................................ 20 ii Table of Authorities Cases BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Harbor Tug & Barge Co. v. Papai
green
2 sentences2009Indus., Inc. , 182 F.3d 340, 346 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing Harbor Tug and Barge Co. v. Papai , 520 U.S. 548, 555 , 117 S.Ct. 1535, 1540 , 137 L.Ed.2d 800 (1997)). 2009Indus., Inc. , 182 F.3d 340, 346 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing Harbor Tug and Barge Co. v. Papai , 520 U.S. 548, 555 , 117 S.Ct. 1535, 1540 , 137 L.Ed.2d 800 (1997)). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Barnes v. United States
green
2 sentences1990See Ulster County Court v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 , 99 S.Ct. 2213 , 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979); Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837 , 93 S.Ct. 2357 , 37 L.Ed.2d 380 (1973). “[T]o specify the procedural consequences of a presumption [and] to satisfy ... constitutional strictures,” the Legislature has enacted V.T.C.A. 1990See Ulster County Court v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 , 99 S.Ct. 2213 , 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979); Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837 , 93 S.Ct. 2357 , 37 L.Ed.2d 380 (1973). “[T]o specify the procedural consequences of a presumption [and] to satisfy ... constitutional strictures,” the Legislature has enacted V.T.C.A. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Schmerber v. California
green
2 sentences1969See generally, 3 Wigmore, Evidence § 823 n. 5 at p. 339 (Chandbourne rev. 1970). [29] Urine specimens: Davis v. District of Columbia, 247 A.2d 417 (D.C.App.1968); United States v. Nesmith, 121 F.Supp. 758, 762 (Dist.Ct., D.C.1954); Voice examplars: United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 223 , 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1930 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 1155 (1967); Blood tests: Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). [30] Noted in 19 Tex.L.Rev. 480 (1941); 26 Wash.L.Q. 435 (1941); 15 U. of Cinn.L.Rev. 344 (1941). 1969See generally, 3 Wigmore, Evidence § 823 n. 5 at p. 339 (Chandbourne rev. 1970). [29] Urine specimens: Davis v. District of Columbia, 247 A.2d 417 (D.C.App.1968); United States v. Nesmith, 121 F.Supp. 758, 762 (Dist.Ct., D.C.1954); Voice examplars: United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 223 , 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1930 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 1155 (1967); Blood tests: Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). [30] Noted in 19 Tex.L.Rev. 480 (1941); 26 Wash.L.Q. 435 (1941); 15 U. of Cinn.L.Rev. 344 (1941). | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1969See 3 Tex.L.Rev. 483 (1925). [28] The connection of the privilege and the confession rule has been termed a "shotgun wedding," Herman, The Supreme Court and Restrictions on Police Interrogations, 25 Ohio St.L.J. 449, 465 (1964); as without historical justification, 3 Wigmore, Evidence § 823 (3d ed. 1940), at p. 249; and bad policy to boot, Justice White, dissenting in Miranda, 384 U.S. at 526-531 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 . 1969See 3 Tex.L.Rev. 483 (1925). [28] The connection of the privilege and the confession rule has been termed a "shotgun wedding," Herman, The Supreme Court and Restrictions on Police Interrogations, 25 Ohio St.L.J. 449, 465 (1964); as without historical justification, 3 Wigmore, Evidence § 823 (3d ed. 1940), at p. 249; and bad policy to boot, Justice White, dissenting in Miranda, 384 U.S. at 526-531 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 . | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Davis v. District of Columbia
green
1 sentence1969See generally, 3 Wigmore, Evidence § 823 n. 5 at p. 339 (Chandbourne rev. 1970). [29] Urine specimens: Davis v. District of Columbia, 247 A.2d 417 (D.C.App.1968); United States v. Nesmith, 121 F.Supp. 758, 762 (Dist.Ct., D.C.1954); Voice examplars: United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 223 , 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1930 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 1155 (1967); Blood tests: Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). [30] Noted in 19 Tex.L.Rev. 480 (1941); 26 Wash.L.Q. 435 (1941); 15 U. of Cinn.L.Rev. 344 (1941). | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Webster v. Webster
neutral
1 sentence1962Webster v. Webster, Tex.Civ.App., 293 S.W.2d 820 . *543 Above claimed “fact issues” are reflected in affidavits of property owners Massad and Culver; the former stating that “one of the Council Members, Mr. Mallon, told him personally that he (Mr. Mallon) would cast his vote in favor of the hospital center regardless of the evidence that was presented at the City Council hearing on January 28, 1961 for the W. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Rose v. Motes
green
1 sentence1956Rule 97, Counterclaim and Cross-Claim, subd. (g), Texas Civil Procedure, is also invoked, providing that: “Tort shall not be the subject of set-off or counterclaim against a contractual demand nor a contractual demand against tort unless it arises out of or is incident to or is connected with same.” In the same connection the rule is well settled that the term “set-off and counterclaim” implies reciprocal demands existing between the same persons at the same time. 47 Am.Jur., p. 746; 38 Tex.Jur., pp. 349, 350; Rose v. Motes, Tex.Civ.App., 220 S.W.2d 734 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Rutherford v. McGee
green
1 sentence1939They contend, however, that even though it were void so far as the minor was concerned, it nevertheless passed all title which Howell had, invoking in this connection the rule announced in- Millican v. McNeill, 102 Tex. 189 , 114 S.W. 106 , 21 L.R.A.,N.S., 60, 132 Am.St.Rep. 863 , 20 Ann.Cas. 74, Rutherford v. McGee, Tex.Civ.App., 241 S.W. 629 , and other similar cases. | 1 | 1939–1939 |
Miller v. Lewis
neutral
1 sentence1937Huggins v. Reynolds, 51 Tex.Civ.App. 504 , 112 S.W. 116 ; Bowles v. Driver (Tex.Civ.App.) 112 S.W. 440 ; Miller v. Lewis (Tex.Civ.App.) 277 S.W. 796 ; Holder v. Swift (Tex.Civ.App.) 147 S.W. 690 ; Heidenheimer, Strassburger & Co. v. Alexander & Baird (Tex.Civ.App.) 205 S.W. 458 ; 8 R.C.L. 362, § 8; 36 C.J. 104, § 74.1; 13 Texjur.. 16, §§ 14 and 15; 27 Tex.Jur. 303, § 176, wherein it is stated: “The doctrine of emblements secures to the tenant a rigjit .to. .enjer upon the premises after expiration o.f the term for the purpose of cultivating, and harvesting crops, provided that- the crops were | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Heidenheimer, Strassburger & Co. v. Alexander & Baird
neutral
1 sentence1937Huggins v. Reynolds, 51 Tex.Civ.App. 504 , 112 S.W. 116 ; Bowles v. Driver (Tex.Civ.App.) 112 S.W. 440 ; Miller v. Lewis (Tex.Civ.App.) 277 S.W. 796 ; Holder v. Swift (Tex.Civ.App.) 147 S.W. 690 ; Heidenheimer, Strassburger & Co. v. Alexander & Baird (Tex.Civ.App.) 205 S.W. 458 ; 8 R.C.L. 362, § 8; 36 C.J. 104, § 74.1; 13 Texjur.. 16, §§ 14 and 15; 27 Tex.Jur. 303, § 176, wherein it is stated: “The doctrine of emblements secures to the tenant a rigjit .to. .enjer upon the premises after expiration o.f the term for the purpose of cultivating, and harvesting crops, provided that- the crops were | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Holder v. Swift
neutral
1 sentence1937Huggins v. Reynolds, 51 Tex.Civ.App. 504 , 112 S.W. 116 ; Bowles v. Driver (Tex.Civ.App.) 112 S.W. 440 ; Miller v. Lewis (Tex.Civ.App.) 277 S.W. 796 ; Holder v. Swift (Tex.Civ.App.) 147 S.W. 690 ; Heidenheimer, Strassburger & Co. v. Alexander & Baird (Tex.Civ.App.) 205 S.W. 458 ; 8 R.C.L. 362, § 8; 36 C.J. 104, § 74.1; 13 Texjur.. 16, §§ 14 and 15; 27 Tex.Jur. 303, § 176, wherein it is stated: “The doctrine of emblements secures to the tenant a rigjit .to. .enjer upon the premises after expiration o.f the term for the purpose of cultivating, and harvesting crops, provided that- the crops were | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Huggins v. Reynolds
neutral
2 sentences1937Huggins v. Reynolds, 51 Tex.Civ.App. 504 , 112 S.W. 116 ; Bowles v. Driver (Tex.Civ.App.) 112 S.W. 440 ; Miller v. Lewis (Tex.Civ.App.) 277 S.W. 796 ; Holder v. Swift (Tex.Civ.App.) 147 S.W. 690 ; Heidenheimer, Strassburger & Co. v. Alexander & Baird (Tex.Civ.App.) 205 S.W. 458 ; 8 R.C.L. 362, § 8; 36 C.J. 104, § 74.1; 13 Texjur.. 16, §§ 14 and 15; 27 Tex.Jur. 303, § 176, wherein it is stated: “The doctrine of emblements secures to the tenant a rigjit .to. .enjer upon the premises after expiration o.f the term for the purpose of cultivating, and harvesting crops, provided that- the crops were 1937Huggins v. Reynolds, 51 Tex.Civ.App. 504 , 112 S.W. 116 ; Bowles v. Driver (Tex.Civ.App.) 112 S.W. 440 ; Miller v. Lewis (Tex.Civ.App.) 277 S.W. 796 ; Holder v. Swift (Tex.Civ.App.) 147 S.W. 690 ; Heidenheimer, Strassburger & Co. v. Alexander & Baird (Tex.Civ.App.) 205 S.W. 458 ; 8 R.C.L. 362, § 8; 36 C.J. 104, § 74.1; 13 Texjur.. 16, §§ 14 and 15; 27 Tex.Jur. 303, § 176, wherein it is stated: “The doctrine of emblements secures to the tenant a rigjit .to. .enjer upon the premises after expiration o.f the term for the purpose of cultivating, and harvesting crops, provided that- the crops were | 1 | 1937–1937 |
| Woods v. Alvarado State Bank green | 1 | 1930–1930 |
| Deleshaw v. Edelen neutral | 1 | 1926–1926 |
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.