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 1847–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Diaz v. Westphalgreen2 sentences2003Shah , 67 S.W.3d at 842 ; Diaz v. Westphal , 941 S.W.2d 96, 100 (Tex. 1997). 2003Shah, 67 S.W.3d at 842 ; Diaz v. Westphal, 941 S.W.2d 96, 100 (Tex.1997). | 3 | 3 |
Norman Communications v. Texas Eastman Co.green1 sentence2018Norman Commc’ns v. Tex. Eastman Co., 955 S.W.2d 269, 270 (Tex. 1997) (per curiam). | 1 | 1 |
Spencer v. Maverickgreen1 sentence2013Stewart, 178 S.W.2d at 508 ; Garlington, 921 S.W.2d at 552-53 . “‘[A] violation of a restrictive covenant at a point on a tract distant from the lot of an individual lot owner may be of no interest whatever to such an owner, and cannot appropriately call for affirmative action on his part.’” Spencer v. Maverick, 146 S.W.2d 819, 824 (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Fetick v. American Cyanamid Co.green1 sentence2008Thompson, 38 S.W.3d at 415. | 1 | 1 |
Finch v. Trentgreen2 sentences1963App. 568, 22 S.W. 132, 133 (1893) no writ history, observes that "[w]hile the doctrine that a quitclaim deed will not support a title founded alone upon a bona fide purchase has been the recognized rule in this state since the decision in Rodgers v. Burchard, 34 Tex. [441, 442] 453, and Harrison v. Boring, 44 Tex. [255] 260, the trend of the later cases seems to be towards a restriction of the rule." This trend seems to have continued, as borne out for example, by Williams v. Rabb, Tex.Civ.App. (1942), 161 S.W.2d 121 , wr. ref. 1963However, Finch v. Trent, 3 Tex.Civ.App. 568 , 22 S.W. 132, 133 (1893) no writ history, observes that “[wjhile the doctrine that a quitclaim deed will not support a title founded alone upon a bona fide purchase has been the recognized rule in this state since the decision in Rodgers v. Burchard, 34 Tex. [441, 442] 453, and Harrison v. Boring, 44 Tex. [255] 260, the trend of the later cases seems to be towards a restriction of the rule.” This trend seems to have continued, as borne out for example, by Williams v. Rabb, Tex.Civ.App. (1942), 161 S.W.2d 121 , wr. ref. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Moreno v. Sterling Drug, Inc.
green
2 sentences2003Id. 2002Id. | 9 | 1995–2003 |
Shah v. Moss
green
2 sentences2003Shah , 67 S.W.3d at 842 ; Diaz v. Westphal , 941 S.W.2d 96, 100 (Tex. 1997). 2003Shah, 67 S.W.3d at 842 ; Diaz v. Westphal, 941 S.W.2d 96, 100 (Tex.1997). | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Garlington v. Boudreaux
green
1 sentence2013Stewart, 178 S.W.2d at 508 ; Garlington, 921 S.W.2d at 552-53 . “‘[A] violation of a restrictive covenant at a point on a tract distant from the lot of an individual lot owner may be of no interest whatever to such an owner, and cannot appropriately call for affirmative action on his part.’” Spencer v. Maverick, 146 S.W.2d 819, 824 (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Stewart v. Welsh
green
1 sentence2013Stewart, 178 S.W.2d at 508 ; Garlington, 921 S.W.2d at 552-53 . “‘[A] violation of a restrictive covenant at a point on a tract distant from the lot of an individual lot owner may be of no interest whatever to such an owner, and cannot appropriately call for affirmative action on his part.’” Spencer v. Maverick, 146 S.W.2d 819, 824 (Tex. Civ. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Thompson v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division
green
1 sentence2008Thompson , 33 S.W.3d at 415 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Garza
green
2 sentences2001Id. 2001Id. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Bala v. Maxwell
green
2 sentences1996Bala, 909 S.W.2d at 893 ; Moreno, 787 S.W.2d at 348 . 1996Bala, 909 S.W.2d at 893 ; Moreno, 787 S.W.2d at 348 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Michael H. v. Gerald D.
green
2 sentences1992Id. 491 U.S. at 125 , 109 S.Ct. at 2343 . 1992Id. 491 U.S. at 125 , 109 S.Ct. at 2343 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Dickey
green
1 sentence1965However, we believe the principle enunciated in the case of State v. Dickey, supra, appears to be sound and a better reasoned authority. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Williams v. Rabb
green
2 sentences1963App. 568, 22 S.W. 132, 133 (1893) no writ history, observes that "[w]hile the doctrine that a quitclaim deed will not support a title founded alone upon a bona fide purchase has been the recognized rule in this state since the decision in Rodgers v. Burchard, 34 Tex. [441, 442] 453, and Harrison v. Boring, 44 Tex. [255] 260, the trend of the later cases seems to be towards a restriction of the rule." This trend seems to have continued, as borne out for example, by Williams v. Rabb, Tex.Civ.App. (1942), 161 S.W.2d 121 , wr. ref. 1963However, Finch v. Trent, 3 Tex.Civ.App. 568 , 22 S.W. 132, 133 (1893) no writ history, observes that “[wjhile the doctrine that a quitclaim deed will not support a title founded alone upon a bona fide purchase has been the recognized rule in this state since the decision in Rodgers v. Burchard, 34 Tex. [441, 442] 453, and Harrison v. Boring, 44 Tex. [255] 260, the trend of the later cases seems to be towards a restriction of the rule.” This trend seems to have continued, as borne out for example, by Williams v. Rabb, Tex.Civ.App. (1942), 161 S.W.2d 121 , wr. ref. | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Inhabitants of Sanford v. Emery
neutral
1 sentence1847“A great variety of American cases have arisen,” says Judge Cowen, “where the witness, having made the entry or memorandum, could swear to his belief of its truth, but had entirely forgotten the facts which he recorded, in which the paper thus attested has been received and read in evidence to-a jury.” And he quotes with approbation the opinions of Nott, J., in the State v. Rawls, 2 Nott. & McC. 334, and Bailey, J., in Maugham v. Hubbard, 2 Me. 5, 7 , who liken the case to proof of the execution of a deed by a subscribing-witness, whose testimony is received as sufficient proof of its executio | 1 | 1847–1847 |
Lawrence v. Barker
neutral
1 sentence1847This seems the .well settled doctrine of that court with this restriction, that the entries must have been made in the usual course of business. 5 Wend. 301 . | 1 | 1847–1847 |
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.