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 1 courts 2000–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Malooly Brothers, Inc. v. Napiergreen2 sentences2001See Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex.1970). 2001See Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier , 461 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex. 1970). | 3 | 3 |
Mercer v. Rossgreen2 sentences2025Appraisal Dist. v. Tex. Workforce Comm’n, 519 S.W.3d 113, 118 (Tex. 2017) (quoting Mercer v. Ross, 701 S.W.2d 830, 831 (Tex. 1986)); Tex-Fin, Inc. v. Ducharne, 492 S.W.3d 430, 439 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (on review of claim under Chapter 61, “the issue is whether the 1 Thrive Academy filed a brief but did not make arguments independent of TWC’s brief. 2000Mercer, 701 S.W.2d at 831 . | 1 | 2 |
Direct Communications, Inc. v. Lunsfordgreen2 sentences2018Direct Commc’ns, Inc., 906 S.W.2d at 540 . 2018Direct Commc’ns, Inc., 906 S.W.2d at 540 . | 1 | 2 |
Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazigreen2 sentences2011Jurisdiction Subject matter jurisdiction defines the court’s power to “determine an action involving a particular subject matter as between the parties and render a certain judgment.” Kshatrya v. Tex. Workforce Comm’n, 97 S.W.3d 825, 829 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.) (citing Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71, 75 (Tex.2000)). 2003Both the TWC and Kshatrya rely on the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71 (Tex.2000). | 1 | 2 |
Harris County Appraisal District v. Texas Workforce Commissiongreen1 sentence2025Appraisal Dist. v. Tex. Workforce Comm’n, 519 S.W.3d 113, 118 (Tex. 2017) (quoting Mercer v. Ross, 701 S.W.2d 830, 831 (Tex. 1986)); Tex-Fin, Inc. v. Ducharne, 492 S.W.3d 430, 439 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (on review of claim under Chapter 61, “the issue is whether the 1 Thrive Academy filed a brief but did not make arguments independent of TWC’s brief. | 1 | 1 |
Tex-Fin, Inc. and Texas Workforce Commission v. Gustavo E. Ducharnegreen1 sentence2025Appraisal Dist. v. Tex. Workforce Comm’n, 519 S.W.3d 113, 118 (Tex. 2017) (quoting Mercer v. Ross, 701 S.W.2d 830, 831 (Tex. 1986)); Tex-Fin, Inc. v. Ducharne, 492 S.W.3d 430, 439 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (on review of claim under Chapter 61, “the issue is whether the 1 Thrive Academy filed a brief but did not make arguments independent of TWC’s brief. | 1 | 1 |
Webb v. City of Dallasgreen2 sentences2024As for the fourth factor, the statements made by Warrior’s counsel (quoted above) at the TWC hearing were far from deliberate, clear, and unequivocal: “I think our client’s position is this arbitration is valid.” Counsel equivocated and even raised the question of the arbitration clause’s enforceability himself during the hearing: “I think there are some legal questions about the arbitration [clause], and even whether they’re enforceable right now or not.” 3 Some courts have held that the doctrine may apply not only to the sworn statements of witnesses, but also to “the statements of attorneys 2024As for the fourth factor, the statements made by Warrior’s counsel (quoted above) at the TWC hearing were far from deliberate, clear, and unequivocal: “I think our client’s position is this arbitration is valid.” Counsel equivocated and even raised the question of the arbitration clause’s enforceability himself during the hearing: “I think there are some legal questions about the arbitration [clause], and even whether they’re enforceable right now or not.” 3 Some courts have held that the doctrine may apply not only to the sworn statements of witnesses, but also to “the statements of attorneys | 1 | 1 |
Wayne Wright, Individually, and Wayne Wright, LLP, D/B/A Wayne Wright Injury Lawyers v. Erika v. Hernandezgreen1 sentence2020See Wright, 469 S.W.3d at 761 ; Dish Network, 2013 WL 3326640 , at *5. | 1 | 1 |
Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Mirandagreen1 sentence2019See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227 . | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Raytheon Aircraft Co.green1 sentence2015See Miller v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 229 S.W.3d 358, 366 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (admitting appellee’s affidavit was harmless because other summary-judgment evidence included same information); Fairmont Supply Co., 177 S.W.3d at 532 (any error in admitting evidence was harmless because it was cumulative). 13 (b) Hearsay Wawarosky also objected that the two TWC hearing transcripts, the “Appeal Tribunal Decision,” denying his claim and appeal, and the EEOC charge and Dismissal and Notice of Rights constitute inadmissible hearsay. | 1 | 1 |
Fairmont Supply Co. v. Hooks Industrial, Inc.green1 sentence2015See Miller v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 229 S.W.3d 358, 366 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (admitting appellee’s affidavit was harmless because other summary-judgment evidence included same information); Fairmont Supply Co., 177 S.W.3d at 532 (any error in admitting evidence was harmless because it was cumulative). 13 (b) Hearsay Wawarosky also objected that the two TWC hearing transcripts, the “Appeal Tribunal Decision,” denying his claim and appeal, and the EEOC charge and Dismissal and Notice of Rights constitute inadmissible hearsay. | 1 | 1 |
Jorge Guevara, M.D. v. Mark Lackner and Robert E. Lacknergreen1 sentence2015P. 166a(i) cmt.1. 10 Guevara v. Lackner, 447 S.W.3d 566, 572 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2014), reh’g overruled (Dec. 11, 2014). 11 See Appendix 1 and 2. 14 084891/000006 375 - 1842976v1 The TWC’s objection focused on the fact that Health Force did not provide direct citations to the pages and lines where the quoted and other summarized testimony is found in the attached transcripts.12 Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i) at its comment 1 simply requires a party point to the testimony. | 1 | 1 |
Heart Hospital IV, L.P. v. Kinggreen1 sentence2014IV, L.P. v. King, 116 S.W.3d 831, 838 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, pet. denied) (holding that 14-day deadline is jurisdictional prerequisite and that trial court lacked jurisdiction to review TWC decision denying benefits when plaintiff filed petition after deadline); Kelley v. Tex. Workforce Comm’n, No. 01-05-01110-CV, 2006 WL 3804451 , at *2 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (same); see also Stoker v. TWC Comm’rs, 402 S.W.3d 926, 930 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.) (affirming trial court order granting TWC’s plea to jurisdiction because movant failed to name “all the | 1 | 1 |
Stoker, Jamie v. TWC Commissionersgreen1 sentence2014IV, L.P. v. King, 116 S.W.3d 831, 838 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, pet. denied) (holding that 14-day deadline is jurisdictional prerequisite and that trial court lacked jurisdiction to review TWC decision denying benefits when plaintiff filed petition after deadline); Kelley v. Tex. Workforce Comm’n, No. 01-05-01110-CV, 2006 WL 3804451 , at *2 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (same); see also Stoker v. TWC Comm’rs, 402 S.W.3d 926, 930 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.) (affirming trial court order granting TWC’s plea to jurisdiction because movant failed to name “all the | 1 | 1 |
Kaufman v. Islamic Society of Arlingtongreen2 sentences2013E.g., Kaufman v. Islamic Soc’y of Arlington, 291 S.W.3d 130, 137 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth 2009, pet. denied). 2013E.g., Kaufman v. Islamic Soc’y of Arlington, 291 S.W.3d 130, 137 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth 2009, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
JMJ Acquisitioins Management, LLC v. Terry L. Peterson and Texas Workforce Commissiongreen1 sentence2013See JMJ Acquisitions, 2013 WL 2635961 at *1 (trial court can consider evidence heard at TWC hearing only if properly introduced). –2– hearing, as she does on appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Kshatrya v. Texas Workforce Commissiongreen1 sentence2011Jurisdiction Subject matter jurisdiction defines the court’s power to “determine an action involving a particular subject matter as between the parties and render a certain judgment.” Kshatrya v. Tex. Workforce Comm’n, 97 S.W.3d 825, 829 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.) (citing Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71, 75 (Tex.2000)). | 1 | 1 |
Texas Ass'n of Business v. Texas Air Control Boardgreen2 sentences2006See Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tex.1993). 2006See Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tex.1993). | 1 | 1 |
Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvalegreen1 sentence2006Accordingly, for simplicity, our references herein to the TWC include both appellees. 3: Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922, 928 (Tex. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1144 (1999). 4: Tex. Lab. | 1 | 1 |
Mary Lee Foundation v. Texas Employment Commissiongreen2 sentences2001Id.; Mary Lee Found, v. Texas Employment Comm’n, 817 S.W.2d 725, 727 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 1991, writ denied). 2001Id.; Mary Lee Found, v. Texas Employment Comm’n, 817 S.W.2d 725, 727 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 1991, writ denied). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Banta Oilfield Services, Inc. v. Mewbourne Oil Company
green
2 sentences2024As for the fourth factor, the statements made by Warrior’s counsel (quoted above) at the TWC hearing were far from deliberate, clear, and unequivocal: “I think our client’s position is this arbitration is valid.” Counsel equivocated and even raised the question of the arbitration clause’s enforceability himself during the hearing: “I think there are some legal questions about the arbitration [clause], and even whether they’re enforceable right now or not.” 3 Some courts have held that the doctrine may apply not only to the sworn statements of witnesses, but also to “the statements of attorneys 2024As for the fourth factor, the statements made by Warrior’s counsel (quoted above) at the TWC hearing were far from deliberate, clear, and unequivocal: “I think our client’s position is this arbitration is valid.” Counsel equivocated and even raised the question of the arbitration clause’s enforceability himself during the hearing: “I think there are some legal questions about the arbitration [clause], and even whether they’re enforceable right now or not.” 3 Some courts have held that the doctrine may apply not only to the sworn statements of witnesses, but also to “the statements of attorneys | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Prairie View A&M University v. Diljit K. Chatha
green
1 sentence2013We conclude, based on the Texas Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Prairie View A & M University v. Chatha, 381 S.W.3d 500 (Tex.2012), that Stoker’s argument is not well taken. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Peace v. Employment Security Commission
green
1 sentence2006Accordingly, for simplicity, our references herein to the TWC include both appellees. 3: Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922, 928 (Tex. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1144 (1999). 4: Tex. Lab. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.