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 2 courts 1925–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Meyers v. Walkergreen2 sentences2005See Meyers , 276 S.W. at 307 ; see also Delta Elec. 2005See Meyers, 276 S.W. at 307 ; see also Delta Elec. | 2 | 3 |
Wyatt Metal & Boiler Works v. Fannin Countygreen2 sentences2004See , e . g ., Wyatt Metal Boiler Works v. Fannin County , 111 S.W.2d 787 , 790 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1937, writ dism'd) ("These purchases having been made in violation of the provisions of the articles requiring competitive bids, the [commissioners court] was without authority to ratify same, for this would grant them a power to do something indirectly they could not do directly."); Limestone County , 234 S.W. at 134 (a commissioners court could not ratify a contract awarded in violation of competitive bidding requirements). 2004See, e.g., Wyatt Metal & Boiler Worh v. Fannin County, 111 S.W.2d 787, 790 (Tex. Civ. | 2 | 3 |
City-County Solid Waste Control Board v. Capital City Leasing, Inc.green2 sentences2008See Stevenson , 113 S.W.2d at 527 (stating that the entire obligation under a contract made in violation of article XI, section 7 is void); City-County Solid Waste Control Bd , 813 S.W.2d at 707 (stating that a contract violating article XI, section 7 is void, and "the governmental unit involved need not pay any related obligation"). 2008Co , 169 S.W.2d at 715 (stating that "debt" incurred in violation of article XI, section 7 "is a nullity"); Stevenson , 113 S.W.2d at 527 (stating that the entire obligation under a contract made in violation of article XI, section 7 is void); City-County Solid Waste Control Bd. , 813 S.W.2d at 707 (stating that a contract violating article XI, section 7 is void, and "the governmental unit involved need not pay any related obligation"). | 2 | 2 |
Stevenson v. Blakegreen2 sentences2008See Stevenson , 113 S.W.2d at 527 (stating that the entire obligation under a contract made in violation of article XI, section 7 is void); City-County Solid Waste Control Bd , 813 S.W.2d at 707 (stating that a contract violating article XI, section 7 is void, and "the governmental unit involved need not pay any related obligation"). 2008Co , 169 S.W.2d at 715 (stating that "debt" incurred in violation of article XI, section 7 "is a nullity"); Stevenson , 113 S.W.2d at 527 (stating that the entire obligation under a contract made in violation of article XI, section 7 is void); City-County Solid Waste Control Bd. , 813 S.W.2d at 707 (stating that a contract violating article XI, section 7 is void, and "the governmental unit involved need not pay any related obligation"). | 2 | 2 |
City of Denton v. Municipal Administrative Services, Inc.green2 sentences2025Servs., Inc., 59 S.W.3d 764 , 769–70 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, no pet.) (citing Richmond Printing v. Port of Houston Auth., 996 S.W.2d 220, 224 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.)) (confirming a contract made in violation of a statute is illegal); cf., TXU Energy Retail Co., LLC, v. Fort Bend ISD, 472 S.W.3d 462, 466 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, no pet.) (citing Tex. Loc. 2010City of Denton v. Municipal Administrative Services, Inc., 59 S.W.3d 764, 769 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, no pet.). | 1 | 2 |
Richmond Printing v. Port of Houston Authoritygreen2 sentences2025Servs., Inc., 59 S.W.3d 764 , 769–70 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, no pet.) (citing Richmond Printing v. Port of Houston Auth., 996 S.W.2d 220, 224 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.)) (confirming a contract made in violation of a statute is illegal); cf., TXU Energy Retail Co., LLC, v. Fort Bend ISD, 472 S.W.3d 462, 466 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, no pet.) (citing Tex. Loc. 2001Richmond Printing v. Port of Houston Auth, 996 S.W.2d 220 , *770 224 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.). | 1 | 2 |
Labrado v. County of El Pasogreen2 sentences2020See id. (citing LOC. 2010Id. at 587 . | 1 | 2 |
TXU Energy Retail Company L.L.C. v. Fort Bend Independent School Districtgreen1 sentence2025Servs., Inc., 59 S.W.3d 764 , 769–70 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, no pet.) (citing Richmond Printing v. Port of Houston Auth., 996 S.W.2d 220, 224 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.)) (confirming a contract made in violation of a statute is illegal); cf., TXU Energy Retail Co., LLC, v. Fort Bend ISD, 472 S.W.3d 462, 466 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, no pet.) (citing Tex. Loc. | 1 | 1 |
T. & N. O. R. R. Co. v. Galveston Countygreen1 sentence2008Co , 169 S.W.2d at 715 (stating that "debt" incurred in violation of article XI, section 7 "is a nullity"); Stevenson , 113 S.W.2d at 527 (stating that the entire obligation under a contract made in violation of article XI, section 7 is void); City-County Solid Waste Control Bd. , 813 S.W.2d at 707 (stating that a contract violating article XI, section 7 is void, and "the governmental unit involved need not pay any related obligation"). | 1 | 1 |
Limestone County v. Knoxgreen1 sentence2004See , e . g ., Wyatt Metal Boiler Works v. Fannin County , 111 S.W.2d 787 , 790 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1937, writ dism'd) ("These purchases having been made in violation of the provisions of the articles requiring competitive bids, the [commissioners court] was without authority to ratify same, for this would grant them a power to do something indirectly they could not do directly."); Limestone County , 234 S.W. at 134 (a commissioners court could not ratify a contract awarded in violation of competitive bidding requirements). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. McCoygreen1 sentence2000See id. 5 44.032(f). | 1 | 1 |
Jack v. Stategreen1 sentence1999Similarly, a contract made in violation of a statute is “illegal and void and therefore not subject to ratification.” Jack v. State, 694 S.W.2d 391, 397 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1985, writ refd n.r.e.). | 1 | 1 |
Minardus v. Zappgreen1 sentence1982Minardus v. Zapp, 112 S.W.2d 496, 498 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1938, no writ); 14 TexJur. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Wyatt Metal & Boiler Works v. Fannin Countygreen2 sentences2004See , e . g ., Wyatt Metal Boiler Works v. Fannin County , 111 S.W.2d 787 , 790 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1937, writ dism'd) ("These purchases having been made in violation of the provisions of the articles requiring competitive bids, the [commissioners court] was without authority to ratify same, for this would grant them a power to do something indirectly they could not do directly."); Limestone County , 234 S.W. at 134 (a commissioners court could not ratify a contract awarded in violation of competitive bidding requirements). 2004See, e.g., Wyatt Metal & Boiler Worh v. Fannin County, 111 S.W.2d 787, 790 (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Quintero v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004Quintero, 709 S.W.2d at 229 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Langford v. Pickens
green
1 sentence1958Woolsey v. Panhandle Refining Co., 131 Tex. 449, 116 S.W.2d 675 ; Wiggins v. Bisso, 92 Tex. 219 , 47 S.W. 637 ; Read v. Smith, 60 Tex. 379 ; Lane v. Thomas, 37 Tex. 157 ; Langford v. Pickens, Tex.Civ.App., 288 S.W.2d 568 , writ refused n. r. e. In 68 C.J.S. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Wiggins v. Bisso
green
2 sentences1958Woolsey v. Panhandle Refining Co., 131 Tex. 449, 116 S.W.2d 675 ; Wiggins v. Bisso, 92 Tex. 219 , 47 S.W. 637 ; Read v. Smith, 60 Tex. 379 ; Lane v. Thomas, 37 Tex. 157 ; Langford v. Pickens, Tex.Civ.App., 288 S.W.2d 568 , writ refused n. r. e. In 68 C.J.S. 1958Woolsey v. Panhandle Refining Co., 131 Tex. 449, 116 S.W.2d 675 ; Wiggins v. Bisso, 92 Tex. 219 , 47 S.W. 637 ; Read v. Smith, 60 Tex. 379 ; Lane v. Thomas, 37 Tex. 157 ; Langford v. Pickens, Tex.Civ.App., 288 S.W.2d 568 , writ refused n. r. e. In 68 C.J.S. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Lane v. Thomas
neutral
1 sentence1958Woolsey v. Panhandle Refining Co., 131 Tex. 449, 116 S.W.2d 675 ; Wiggins v. Bisso, 92 Tex. 219 , 47 S.W. 637 ; Read v. Smith, 60 Tex. 379 ; Lane v. Thomas, 37 Tex. 157 ; Langford v. Pickens, Tex.Civ.App., 288 S.W.2d 568 , writ refused n. r. e. In 68 C.J.S. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Read v. Smith
neutral
1 sentence1958Woolsey v. Panhandle Refining Co., 131 Tex. 449, 116 S.W.2d 675 ; Wiggins v. Bisso, 92 Tex. 219 , 47 S.W. 637 ; Read v. Smith, 60 Tex. 379 ; Lane v. Thomas, 37 Tex. 157 ; Langford v. Pickens, Tex.Civ.App., 288 S.W.2d 568 , writ refused n. r. e. In 68 C.J.S. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Woolsey v. Panhandle Refining Co.
green
2 sentences1958Woolsey v. Panhandle Refining Co., 131 Tex. 449, 116 S.W.2d 675 ; Wiggins v. Bisso, 92 Tex. 219 , 47 S.W. 637 ; Read v. Smith, 60 Tex. 379 ; Lane v. Thomas, 37 Tex. 157 ; Langford v. Pickens, Tex.Civ.App., 288 S.W.2d 568 , writ refused n. r. e. In 68 C.J.S. 1958Woolsey v. Panhandle Refining Co., 131 Tex. 449, 116 S.W.2d 675 ; Wiggins v. Bisso, 92 Tex. 219 , 47 S.W. 637 ; Read v. Smith, 60 Tex. 379 ; Lane v. Thomas, 37 Tex. 157 ; Langford v. Pickens, Tex.Civ.App., 288 S.W.2d 568 , writ refused n. r. e. In 68 C.J.S. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Hosmer v. Sheldon School District No. 2
green
1 sentence1940W.&Telegraph Co. v. Partlow, 30 Tell. .Clv.‘.App. 599, 7l S.W, 586; Iioemer v. Sheldon Srrhool Dlatrlot, 4 N.D. 197 , 59 N.W. 1035r 25 SALA. ,383,50 Am. .St. .Rep. 639; :Ryan v. -Dakota Co. .Dlfit. 27 Mlnn. 433, 8 N.W. 146s Xlmball v. .Sahool Dist., 23 wash. 520, 63 Pao. 213. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Moog v. Hannon's Adm'r
neutral
1 sentence1937In Williston on Contracts, vol. 3, § 1763, (First Edition) the author says: “There can be no doubt that if a statute directly, prohibits a contract or sale it cannot be enforced by the parties to it, and the imposition of a penalty is at least prima facie an implied prohibition of the transaction to which the penalty attaches; but though no penalty is imposed, the transaction may nevertheless be invalidated.” In the note he quotes from Norbeck & N. Co. v. State, 32 S.D. 189 , 142 N.W. 847, 849 , Ann.Cas.1916A, 229, as follows: “A contract founded on a statute making an act penal is void, altho | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Norbeck & Nicholson Co. v. State
green
2 sentences1937In Williston on Contracts, vol. 3, § 1763, (First Edition) the author says: “There can be no doubt that if a statute directly, prohibits a contract or sale it cannot be enforced by the parties to it, and the imposition of a penalty is at least prima facie an implied prohibition of the transaction to which the penalty attaches; but though no penalty is imposed, the transaction may nevertheless be invalidated.” In the note he quotes from Norbeck & N. Co. v. State, 32 S.D. 189 , 142 N.W. 847, 849 , Ann.Cas.1916A, 229, as follows: “A contract founded on a statute making an act penal is void, altho 1937In Williston on Contracts, vol. 3, § 1763, (First Edition) the author says: “There can be no doubt that if a statute directly, prohibits a contract or sale it cannot be enforced by the parties to it, and the imposition of a penalty is at least prima facie an implied prohibition of the transaction to which the penalty attaches; but though no penalty is imposed, the transaction may nevertheless be invalidated.” In the note he quotes from Norbeck & N. Co. v. State, 32 S.D. 189 , 142 N.W. 847, 849 , Ann.Cas.1916A, 229, as follows: “A contract founded on a statute making an act penal is void, altho | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Republic Trust Co. v. Taylor
neutral
1 sentence1937As a general rule, therefore, a contract made in violation of the constitution, or of an express statute, or of an ordinance, or the performance of which will result in such violation, is void and unenforceable, without regard to the question of moral turpitude, and whether the parties knew the law or not.” In section 108, Id., it is said: “A contract in violation of the statute is void if the purpose of. the legislature was to protect the public from fraud in contracts, or to promote some object of public policy,” citing Republic Trust Co. v. Taylor (Tex.Civ.App.) 184 S.W. 772 . | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Maurer v. Greening Nursery Co.
neutral
2 sentences1925As this act involves purely business transactions, and affects only money interests, we think it should be construed as rendering contracts made in violation of it unlawful and unenforceable at the instance of the offending party only, but not as designed to take away the rights of innocent parties who may have dealt with the offenders in ignorance of their having violated the statute.” The Cashin Case has been approved and followed by the Michigan Supreme Court in the case of Maurer v. Greening Nursery Co., 199 Mich. 522 , 165 N. W. 861 , 168 N. W. 448 . 1925As this act involves purely business transactions, and affects only money interests, we think it should be construed as rendering contracts made in violation of it unlawful and unenforceable at the instance of the offending party only, but not as designed to take away the rights of innocent parties who may have dealt with the offenders in ignorance of their having violated the statute.” The Cashin Case has been approved and followed by the Michigan Supreme Court in the case of Maurer v. Greening Nursery Co., 199 Mich. 522 , 165 N. W. 861 , 168 N. W. 448 . | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Bishop's Administrator v. Bishop
neutral
1 sentence1925That court holds that — “There is no doubt that the Legislature by the statutes intended to and did make it unlawful to transact business under an assumed name, and, being unlawful to do it, there is no reason why the courts should lend their aid to the enforcement of a contract made in violation of laws Hunter et al. v. Patterson et al., 162 Ky. 769 , 173 S. W. 120 , L. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Hunter v. Big Four Auto Co.
neutral
1 sentence1925That court holds that — “There is no doubt that the Legislature by the statutes intended to and did make it unlawful to transact business under an assumed name, and, being unlawful to do it, there is no reason why the courts should lend their aid to the enforcement of a contract made in violation of laws Hunter et al. v. Patterson et al., 162 Ky. 769 , 173 S. W. 120 , L. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
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.