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 1968–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Prystash v. Stategreen2 sentences2004See Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522, 530-32 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1102 , 120 S.Ct. 1840 , 146 L.Ed.2d 782 (2000). 2004See Prystash v. State , 3 S.W.3d 522, 530-32 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Heavens v. Laclede Gas Co.green2 sentences2011See Heavens v. Laclede Gas Co., 755 S.W.2d at 332 (stating that “[i]f [the] employer had purchased insurance for the vehicle 6 rather than self-insuring, the insurer would have paid under the uninsured motorist provision of that policy”).3 As for Smith’s attempt to invoke the doctrines of waiver and estoppel, we say the following. 2011See Heavens v. Laclede Gas Co., 755 S.W.2d at 332 (stating that “[i]f [the] employer had purchased insurance for the vehicle rather than self-insuring, the insurer would have paid under the uninsured motorist provision of that policy”). 3 As for Smith’s attempt to invoke the doctrines of waiver and estoppel, we say the following. | 2 | 2 |
Ulico Casualty Co. v. Allied Pilots Ass'ngreen2 sentences2025Co., 262 S.W.3d 773 (“It is well established that, whereas the doctrines of waiver and estoppel may operate to avoid conditions that would cause a forfeiture of an insurance policy, they will not operate to change, re-write or enlarge the risks covered by the policy.”). 2025Co., 262 S.W.3d 773 (“It is well established that, whereas the doctrines of waiver and estoppel may operate to avoid conditions that would cause a forfeiture of an insurance policy, they will not operate to change, re-write or enlarge the risks covered by the policy.”). | 1 | 4 |
Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wilkinsongreen2 sentences2008It acknowledged the “well-established” rule that “the doctrines of waiver and estoppel may operate to avoid conditions that would cause a forfeiture of an insurance policy, [but] they will not operate to change, re-write or enlarge the risks covered by the policy.” Id. at 521 . 2008It acknowledged the "well-established" rule that "the doctrines of waiver and estoppel may operate to avoid conditions that would cause a forfeiture of an insurance policy, [but] they will not operate to change, re-write or enlarge the risks covered by the policy." Id. at 521 . | 1 | 3 |
Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Morsegreen2 sentences1984Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Morse, 487 S.W.2d 317 (Tex.1972); Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Company v. Wilkinson, 601 S.W.2d 520 (Tex.Civ.App. — Austin 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Brownsville Fabrics, Inc. v. Gulf Insurance Company, 550 S.W.2d at 340. 1980Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Morse, 487 S.W.2d 317 (Tex.1972); Washington National Ins. | 1 | 3 |
Jernigan v. Langleygreen1 sentence2008A. Applicable law Waiver is defined as "an intentional relinquishment of a known right or intentional conduct inconsistent with claiming that right." Jernigan v. Langley , 111 S.W.3d 153, 157 (Tex. 2003) (citing Sun Exploration & Prod. | 1 | 1 |
Medina v. Texasgreen1 sentence2004See Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522, 530-32 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1102 , 120 S.Ct. 1840 , 146 L.Ed.2d 782 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
Cowans v. Ohiogreen1 sentence2004See Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522, 530-32 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1102 , 120 S.Ct. 1840 , 146 L.Ed.2d 782 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
City of Garland v. Dallas Morning Newsgreen1 sentence1999“The doctrines of waiver and estoppel have no place” in a proceeding under section 552.301 because an attorney general’s opinion is purely ministerial and advisory; the opinion does not “bind[] parties in their legal and equitable interests.” City of San Antonio v. Texas Att’y Gen., 851 S.W.2d 946, 950 (Tex.App.—Austin 1993, writ denied); see also City of Garland, 969 S.W.2d at 554-55 (noting that, although attorney general’s opinions are entitled to due consideration, they are not binding on courts). | 1 | 1 |
City of San Antonio v. Texas Attorney Generalgreen1 sentence1999“The doctrines of waiver and estoppel have no place” in a proceeding under section 552.301 because an attorney general’s opinion is purely ministerial and advisory; the opinion does not “bind[] parties in their legal and equitable interests.” City of San Antonio v. Texas Att’y Gen., 851 S.W.2d 946, 950 (Tex.App.—Austin 1993, writ denied); see also City of Garland, 969 S.W.2d at 554-55 (noting that, although attorney general’s opinions are entitled to due consideration, they are not binding on courts). | 1 | 1 |
Employers Casualty Company v. Tilleygreen2 sentences1994See Employers Casualty Co. v. Tilley, 496 S.W.2d 552, 561 (Tex.1973); see also State Farm Lloyds, Inc. v. Williams, 791 S.W.2d 542, 552 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1990, writ denied). 1994See Employers Casualty Co. v. Tilley, 496 S.W.2d 552, 561 (Tex.1973); see also State Farm Lloyds, Inc. v. Williams, 791 S.W.2d 542, 552 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1990, writ denied). | 1 | 1 |
State Farm Lloyds, Inc. v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1994See Employers Casualty Co. v. Tilley, 496 S.W.2d 552, 561 (Tex.1973); see also State Farm Lloyds, Inc. v. Williams, 791 S.W.2d 542, 552 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1990, writ denied). 1994See Employers Casualty Co. v. Tilley, 496 S.W.2d 552, 561 (Tex.1973); see also State Farm Lloyds, Inc. v. Williams, 791 S.W.2d 542, 552 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1990, writ denied). | 1 | 1 |
General Life & Accident Insurance v. Lightfootgreen1 sentence1990General Life and Accident Insurance Company v. Lightfoot, 737 S.W.2d 953, 957 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1987, writ denied). | 1 | 1 |
Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. v. Dallas Steam Laundry & Dye Worksgreen1 sentence1977Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Morse, 487 S.W.2d 317, 320 (Tex.Sup.1972); Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. v. Dallas Steam Laundry & Dye Works, 85 S.W.2d 937, 939-42 (Tex.Civ.App.—Eastland 1935, writ ref’d); 1 ALR3d 1139, 1147 (1965); 45 C.J.S. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson
green
1 sentence2025Appraisal Dist., 862 S.W.2d 581 (Tex. 1993) ....................................................................... 43 Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. 2001) ......................................................................... 32 Bass v. Waller Cnty. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Astoria Industries of Iowa, Inc. v. SNF, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025The doctrines of waiver and estoppel bar Appellant’s collateral attack. .................................................................................................... 45 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF .................................................... 46 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .............................................................................. 48 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ..................................................................... 50 vii APPENDIX TO JOINT BRIEF OF APPELLEES ................................................ 51 viii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases 1st & | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Bailey v. Cherokee County Appraisal District
green
1 sentence2025Appraisal Dist., 862 S.W.2d 581 (Tex. 1993) ....................................................................... 43 Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. 2001) ......................................................................... 32 Bass v. Waller Cnty. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Alpert v. Gerstner
green
1 sentence2025The doctrines of waiver and estoppel bar Appellant’s collateral attack. .................................................................................................... 45 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF .................................................... 46 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .............................................................................. 48 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ..................................................................... 50 vii APPENDIX TO JOINT BRIEF OF APPELLEES ................................................ 51 viii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases 1st & | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Akers v. Simpson
green
1 sentence2025The doctrines of waiver and estoppel bar Appellant’s collateral attack. .................................................................................................... 45 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF .................................................... 46 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .............................................................................. 48 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ..................................................................... 50 vii APPENDIX TO JOINT BRIEF OF APPELLEES ................................................ 51 viii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases 1st & | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Alexander v. Alexander
green
1 sentence2025The doctrines of waiver and estoppel bar Appellant’s collateral attack. .................................................................................................... 45 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF .................................................... 46 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .............................................................................. 48 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ..................................................................... 50 vii APPENDIX TO JOINT BRIEF OF APPELLEES ................................................ 51 viii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases 1st & | 1 | 2025–2025 |
in Re Crawford & Company, Crawford & Company Healthcare Management, Inc., Patsy Hogan and Old Republic Insurance Company
green
1 sentence2021Furthermore, we note that, even though Appellants were to blame for filing their wrongful death action in the county court at law, Appellants are not barred by the doctrines of waiver, judicial admission, or estoppel (i.e., invited error) because “such doctrines cannot create subject-matter jurisdiction where it does not otherwise exist.” In re Crawford & Co., 458 S.W.3d 920 , 928 n.7 (Tex. 2015). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co., Cross-Appellee v. Kitty Hawk Airways, Inc., and Jeffrey Thomason Pollard, Cross-Appellants
green
2 sentences2008Co. v. Kitty Hawk Airways, Inc., 964 F.2d 478 , 480 n. 5 (5th Cir.1992) (noting that the doctrines of waiver and estoppel are distinct and separate doctrines). 2008Co. v. Kitty Hawk Airways, Inc., 964 F.2d 478 , 480 n. 5 (5th Cir.1992) (noting that the doctrines of waiver and estoppel are distinct and separate doctrines). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Great American Reserve Insurance Co. v. Mitchell
green
1 sentence1968In Great American Reserve Insurance Co. v. Mitchell, 335 S.W.2d 707 (Tex.Civ.App., 1960, writ ref.), it was held that “Waiver and estoppel may operate to avoid a forfeiture of a policy, but they have consistently been denied operative force to change, re-write and enlarge the risks covered by a policy. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.