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.
20 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1929–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences1980Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 2212a, § 2(g) (Vernon Supp.1980) provides, in part: “All claims for contribution between named defendants in the primary suit shall be determined in the primary suit Section 2(h) of the same article provides: “This section prevails over Article 2212 . and all other laws to the extent of any conflict.” In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v. Edwards, 512 S.W.2d 748, 753 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1974, no writ), the court wrote: “As we interpret the provisions of Article 2212a, the legislature expressly provided a special venue in all cases where one of the named defendants fil 1978In the first, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v. Edwards, 512 S.W.2d 748, 753 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1974, no writ), the court held that “the legislature expressly provided a special venue in all cases where one of the named defendants files a cross claim against another named defendant for contribution. . . . | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Lone Star Cadillac, Inc.green2 sentences2014Operating Co. v. Sonora Exploration Corp., 862 S.W.2d 149, 151 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied) (“Section 16.069 was clearly designed to prevent plaintiffs from waiting to file their claims until the statute of limitations had run on the defendant’s potential counterclaims.”); ECC Parkway Joint Venture v. Baldwin, 765 S.W.2d 504, 513 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1989, writ denied) (“section 16.069 allows a defendant to file within thirty days of an action”); Smith v. Lone Star Cadillac, Inc., 470 S.W.2d 791, 792 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1971, no writ) (addressing whether section 16.069 “extends 2006Id. at 792 . | 1 | 2 |
Harding Bars, LLC D/B/A the Aquifer Bar, Bars R US, Inc., and Ramsey White Bars LLC D/B/A Kennedy's Public House v. Kayle McCaskillgreen1 sentence2025Id. (citing Harding Bars, LLC v. McCaskill, 374 S.W.3d 517, 520 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, pet. denied)). | 1 | 1 |
Talbot v. Travergreen2 sentences2015Sess.); see also Talbot v. Traver, 329 Mass. 356 , 108 N.E.2d 540 (1952) (applying statute). –2– document attached to Cross’s motion is unauthenticated and Cross’s affidavit is conclusory and not based on personal knowledge. 2015Sess.); see also Talbot v. Traver, 329 Mass. 356 , 108 N.E.2d 540 (1952) (applying statute). –2– document attached to Cross’s motion is unauthenticated and Cross’s affidavit is conclusory and not based on personal knowledge. | 1 | 1 |
ECC Parkway Joint Venture v. Baldwingreen1 sentence2014Operating Co. v. Sonora Exploration Corp., 862 S.W.2d 149, 151 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied) (“Section 16.069 was clearly designed to prevent plaintiffs from waiting to file their claims until the statute of limitations had run on the defendant’s potential counterclaims.”); ECC Parkway Joint Venture v. Baldwin, 765 S.W.2d 504, 513 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1989, writ denied) (“section 16.069 allows a defendant to file within thirty days of an action”); Smith v. Lone Star Cadillac, Inc., 470 S.W.2d 791, 792 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1971, no writ) (addressing whether section 16.069 “extends | 1 | 1 |
E.P. Operating Co. v. Sonora Exploration Corp.green1 sentence2014Operating Co. v. Sonora Exploration Corp., 862 S.W.2d 149, 151 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied) (“Section 16.069 was clearly designed to prevent plaintiffs from waiting to file their claims until the statute of limitations had run on the defendant’s potential counterclaims.”); ECC Parkway Joint Venture v. Baldwin, 765 S.W.2d 504, 513 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1989, writ denied) (“section 16.069 allows a defendant to file within thirty days of an action”); Smith v. Lone Star Cadillac, Inc., 470 S.W.2d 791, 792 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1971, no writ) (addressing whether section 16.069 “extends | 1 | 1 |
State v. LEDREC, INC.green1 sentence2013See 4 R.R. 250. [47] See Ledrec , 366 S.W.3d at 311 (holding that an expert’s testimony was not based on a speculative or remote possibility—specifically, what value the property would have in the future at the time of a future annexation—but instead was based on an assessment of the current value a willing buyer and seller would place on the remainder property as of the date of taking because of the perception that annexation could limit the property’s use); see also Interstate Northborough P’ship v. State , 66 S.W.3d 213, 221 (Tex. 2001) (discussing State v. Schmidt , 867 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. 19 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dawmar Partners, Ltd.green2 sentences2013See 4 R.R. 250. [47] See Ledrec , 366 S.W.3d at 311 (holding that an expert’s testimony was not based on a speculative or remote possibility—specifically, what value the property would have in the future at the time of a future annexation—but instead was based on an assessment of the current value a willing buyer and seller would place on the remainder property as of the date of taking because of the perception that annexation could limit the property’s use); see also Interstate Northborough P’ship v. State , 66 S.W.3d 213, 221 (Tex. 2001) (discussing State v. Schmidt , 867 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. 19 2013See 4 R.R. 250. [47] See Ledrec , 366 S.W.3d at 311 (holding that an expert’s testimony was not based on a speculative or remote possibility—specifically, what value the property would have in the future at the time of a future annexation—but instead was based on an assessment of the current value a willing buyer and seller would place on the remainder property as of the date of taking because of the perception that annexation could limit the property’s use); see also Interstate Northborough P’ship v. State , 66 S.W.3d 213, 221 (Tex. 2001) (discussing State v. Schmidt , 867 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. 19 | 1 | 1 |
Schneider National Carriers, Inc. v. Batesgreen1 sentence2013See 4 R.R. 250. [47] See Ledrec , 366 S.W.3d at 311 (holding that an expert’s testimony was not based on a speculative or remote possibility—specifically, what value the property would have in the future at the time of a future annexation—but instead was based on an assessment of the current value a willing buyer and seller would place on the remainder property as of the date of taking because of the perception that annexation could limit the property’s use); see also Interstate Northborough P’ship v. State , 66 S.W.3d 213, 221 (Tex. 2001) (discussing State v. Schmidt , 867 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. 19 | 1 | 1 |
Interstate Northborough Partnership v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See 4 R.R. 250. [47] See Ledrec , 366 S.W.3d at 311 (holding that an expert’s testimony was not based on a speculative or remote possibility—specifically, what value the property would have in the future at the time of a future annexation—but instead was based on an assessment of the current value a willing buyer and seller would place on the remainder property as of the date of taking because of the perception that annexation could limit the property’s use); see also Interstate Northborough P’ship v. State , 66 S.W.3d 213, 221 (Tex. 2001) (discussing State v. Schmidt , 867 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. 19 | 1 | 1 |
Exxon Pipeline Co. v. Zwahrgreen2 sentences2013See 4 R.R. 250. [47] See Ledrec , 366 S.W.3d at 311 (holding that an expert’s testimony was not based on a speculative or remote possibility—specifically, what value the property would have in the future at the time of a future annexation—but instead was based on an assessment of the current value a willing buyer and seller would place on the remainder property as of the date of taking because of the perception that annexation could limit the property’s use); see also Interstate Northborough P’ship v. State , 66 S.W.3d 213, 221 (Tex. 2001) (discussing State v. Schmidt , 867 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. 19 2013See 4 R.R. 250. [47] See Ledrec , 366 S.W.3d at 311 (holding that an expert’s testimony was not based on a speculative or remote possibility—specifically, what value the property would have in the future at the time of a future annexation—but instead was based on an assessment of the current value a willing buyer and seller would place on the remainder property as of the date of taking because of the perception that annexation could limit the property’s use); see also Interstate Northborough P’ship v. State , 66 S.W.3d 213, 221 (Tex. 2001) (discussing State v. Schmidt , 867 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. 19 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schmidtgreen1 sentence2013See 4 R.R. 250. [47] See Ledrec , 366 S.W.3d at 311 (holding that an expert’s testimony was not based on a speculative or remote possibility—specifically, what value the property would have in the future at the time of a future annexation—but instead was based on an assessment of the current value a willing buyer and seller would place on the remainder property as of the date of taking because of the perception that annexation could limit the property’s use); see also Interstate Northborough P’ship v. State , 66 S.W.3d 213, 221 (Tex. 2001) (discussing State v. Schmidt , 867 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. 19 | 1 | 1 |
Davenport v. Garciagreen1 sentence2013See 4 R.R. 250. [47] See Ledrec , 366 S.W.3d at 311 (holding that an expert’s testimony was not based on a speculative or remote possibility—specifically, what value the property would have in the future at the time of a future annexation—but instead was based on an assessment of the current value a willing buyer and seller would place on the remainder property as of the date of taking because of the perception that annexation could limit the property’s use); see also Interstate Northborough P’ship v. State , 66 S.W.3d 213, 221 (Tex. 2001) (discussing State v. Schmidt , 867 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. 19 | 1 | 1 |
City of Austin v. Cannizzogreen2 sentences2013See 4 R.R. 250. [47] See Ledrec , 366 S.W.3d at 311 (holding that an expert’s testimony was not based on a speculative or remote possibility—specifically, what value the property would have in the future at the time of a future annexation—but instead was based on an assessment of the current value a willing buyer and seller would place on the remainder property as of the date of taking because of the perception that annexation could limit the property’s use); see also Interstate Northborough P’ship v. State , 66 S.W.3d 213, 221 (Tex. 2001) (discussing State v. Schmidt , 867 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. 19 2013See 4 R.R. 250. [47] See Ledrec , 366 S.W.3d at 311 (holding that an expert’s testimony was not based on a speculative or remote possibility—specifically, what value the property would have in the future at the time of a future annexation—but instead was based on an assessment of the current value a willing buyer and seller would place on the remainder property as of the date of taking because of the perception that annexation could limit the property’s use); see also Interstate Northborough P’ship v. State , 66 S.W.3d 213, 221 (Tex. 2001) (discussing State v. Schmidt , 867 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. 19 | 1 | 1 |
Cross v. Stategreen1 sentence2007See Cross , 144 S.W.3d at 526-27 (holding that State must show re-initiation and waiver after right to counsel is invoked); Kirk , 199 S.W.3d at 476-77 (applying Cross analysis to Sixth Amendment). | 1 | 1 |
Kirk v. Stategreen1 sentence2007See Cross , 144 S.W.3d at 526-27 (holding that State must show re-initiation and waiver after right to counsel is invoked); Kirk , 199 S.W.3d at 476-77 (applying Cross analysis to Sixth Amendment). | 1 | 1 |
Magnan v. Anaconda Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2000Accordingly, we hereafter address only O’Bryant’s reinstatement claim. 2 .See Era Aviation, Inc. v. Seekins, 973 P.2d 1137, 1139 (Alaska 1999); "Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370 , 710 P.2d 1025, 1033 (1985) (en banc); Smith v. American Greetings Corp., 304 Ark. 596 , 804 S.W.2d 683, 684 (1991); Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d 654 , 254 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373, 376 (1988) (in bank); Crawford Rehabilitation Servs., Inc. v. Weissman, 938 P.2d 540, 547 (Colo.1997); Magnan v. Anaconda Ind., Inc., 193 Conn. 558 , 479 A.2d 781, 789 (1984); Parnar v. Americana Hotel 2000Accordingly, we hereafter address only O’Bryant’s reinstatement claim. 2 .See Era Aviation, Inc. v. Seekins, 973 P.2d 1137, 1139 (Alaska 1999); "Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370 , 710 P.2d 1025, 1033 (1985) (en banc); Smith v. American Greetings Corp., 304 Ark. 596 , 804 S.W.2d 683, 684 (1991); Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d 654 , 254 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373, 376 (1988) (in bank); Crawford Rehabilitation Servs., Inc. v. Weissman, 938 P.2d 540, 547 (Colo.1997); Magnan v. Anaconda Ind., Inc., 193 Conn. 558 , 479 A.2d 781, 789 (1984); Parnar v. Americana Hotel | 1 | 1 |
| Smith v. American Greetings Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
Howard v. Dorr Woolen Co.green2 sentences2000Accordingly, we hereafter address only O’Bryant’s reinstatement claim. 2 .See Era Aviation, Inc. v. Seekins, 973 P.2d 1137, 1139 (Alaska 1999); "Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370 , 710 P.2d 1025, 1033 (1985) (en banc); Smith v. American Greetings Corp., 304 Ark. 596 , 804 S.W.2d 683, 684 (1991); Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d 654 , 254 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373, 376 (1988) (in bank); Crawford Rehabilitation Servs., Inc. v. Weissman, 938 P.2d 540, 547 (Colo.1997); Magnan v. Anaconda Ind., Inc., 193 Conn. 558 , 479 A.2d 781, 789 (1984); Parnar v. Americana Hotel 2000Accordingly, we hereafter address only O’Bryant’s reinstatement claim. 2 .See Era Aviation, Inc. v. Seekins, 973 P.2d 1137, 1139 (Alaska 1999); "Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370 , 710 P.2d 1025, 1033 (1985) (en banc); Smith v. American Greetings Corp., 304 Ark. 596 , 804 S.W.2d 683, 684 (1991); Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d 654 , 254 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373, 376 (1988) (in bank); Crawford Rehabilitation Servs., Inc. v. Weissman, 938 P.2d 540, 547 (Colo.1997); Magnan v. Anaconda Ind., Inc., 193 Conn. 558 , 479 A.2d 781, 789 (1984); Parnar v. Americana Hotel | 1 | 1 |
Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc.green2 sentences2000Accordingly, we hereafter address only O’Bryant’s reinstatement claim. 2 .See Era Aviation, Inc. v. Seekins, 973 P.2d 1137, 1139 (Alaska 1999); "Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370 , 710 P.2d 1025, 1033 (1985) (en banc); Smith v. American Greetings Corp., 304 Ark. 596 , 804 S.W.2d 683, 684 (1991); Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d 654 , 254 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373, 376 (1988) (in bank); Crawford Rehabilitation Servs., Inc. v. Weissman, 938 P.2d 540, 547 (Colo.1997); Magnan v. Anaconda Ind., Inc., 193 Conn. 558 , 479 A.2d 781, 789 (1984); Parnar v. Americana Hotel 2000Accordingly, we hereafter address only O’Bryant’s reinstatement claim. 2 .See Era Aviation, Inc. v. Seekins, 973 P.2d 1137, 1139 (Alaska 1999); "Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370 , 710 P.2d 1025, 1033 (1985) (en banc); Smith v. American Greetings Corp., 304 Ark. 596 , 804 S.W.2d 683, 684 (1991); Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d 654 , 254 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373, 376 (1988) (in bank); Crawford Rehabilitation Servs., Inc. v. Weissman, 938 P.2d 540, 547 (Colo.1997); Magnan v. Anaconda Ind., Inc., 193 Conn. 558 , 479 A.2d 781, 789 (1984); Parnar v. Americana Hotel | 1 | 1 |
Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.green2 sentences2000Accordingly, we hereafter address only O’Bryant’s reinstatement claim. 2 .See Era Aviation, Inc. v. Seekins, 973 P.2d 1137, 1139 (Alaska 1999); "Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370 , 710 P.2d 1025, 1033 (1985) (en banc); Smith v. American Greetings Corp., 304 Ark. 596 , 804 S.W.2d 683, 684 (1991); Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d 654 , 254 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373, 376 (1988) (in bank); Crawford Rehabilitation Servs., Inc. v. Weissman, 938 P.2d 540, 547 (Colo.1997); Magnan v. Anaconda Ind., Inc., 193 Conn. 558 , 479 A.2d 781, 789 (1984); Parnar v. Americana Hotel 2000Accordingly, we hereafter address only O’Bryant’s reinstatement claim. 2 .See Era Aviation, Inc. v. Seekins, 973 P.2d 1137, 1139 (Alaska 1999); "Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370 , 710 P.2d 1025, 1033 (1985) (en banc); Smith v. American Greetings Corp., 304 Ark. 596 , 804 S.W.2d 683, 684 (1991); Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d 654 , 254 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373, 376 (1988) (in bank); Crawford Rehabilitation Servs., Inc. v. Weissman, 938 P.2d 540, 547 (Colo.1997); Magnan v. Anaconda Ind., Inc., 193 Conn. 558 , 479 A.2d 781, 789 (1984); Parnar v. Americana Hotel | 1 | 1 |
Gilmore v. Enogex, Inc.green1 sentence2000Accordingly, we hereafter address only O’Bryant’s reinstatement claim. 2 .See Era Aviation, Inc. v. Seekins, 973 P.2d 1137, 1139 (Alaska 1999); "Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370 , 710 P.2d 1025, 1033 (1985) (en banc); Smith v. American Greetings Corp., 304 Ark. 596 , 804 S.W.2d 683, 684 (1991); Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d 654 , 254 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373, 376 (1988) (in bank); Crawford Rehabilitation Servs., Inc. v. Weissman, 938 P.2d 540, 547 (Colo.1997); Magnan v. Anaconda Ind., Inc., 193 Conn. 558 , 479 A.2d 781, 789 (1984); Parnar v. Americana Hotel | 1 | 1 |
Heslop v. Bank of Utahgreen1 sentence2000Accordingly, we hereafter address only O’Bryant’s reinstatement claim. 2 .See Era Aviation, Inc. v. Seekins, 973 P.2d 1137, 1139 (Alaska 1999); "Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370 , 710 P.2d 1025, 1033 (1985) (en banc); Smith v. American Greetings Corp., 304 Ark. 596 , 804 S.W.2d 683, 684 (1991); Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d 654 , 254 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373, 376 (1988) (in bank); Crawford Rehabilitation Servs., Inc. v. Weissman, 938 P.2d 540, 547 (Colo.1997); Magnan v. Anaconda Ind., Inc., 193 Conn. 558 , 479 A.2d 781, 789 (1984); Parnar v. Americana Hotel | 1 | 1 |
| Ludwick v. This Minute of Carolina, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
Crawford Rehabilitation Services, Inc. v. Weissmangreen1 sentence2000Accordingly, we hereafter address only O’Bryant’s reinstatement claim. 2 .See Era Aviation, Inc. v. Seekins, 973 P.2d 1137, 1139 (Alaska 1999); "Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370 , 710 P.2d 1025, 1033 (1985) (en banc); Smith v. American Greetings Corp., 304 Ark. 596 , 804 S.W.2d 683, 684 (1991); Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d 654 , 254 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373, 376 (1988) (in bank); Crawford Rehabilitation Servs., Inc. v. Weissman, 938 P.2d 540, 547 (Colo.1997); Magnan v. Anaconda Ind., Inc., 193 Conn. 558 , 479 A.2d 781, 789 (1984); Parnar v. Americana Hotel | 1 | 1 |
| Stratton v. CHEVROLET MOTOR DIV., GMC.green | 1 | 1 |
Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospitalgreen2 sentences2000Accordingly, we hereafter address only O’Bryant’s reinstatement claim. 2 .See Era Aviation, Inc. v. Seekins, 973 P.2d 1137, 1139 (Alaska 1999); "Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370 , 710 P.2d 1025, 1033 (1985) (en banc); Smith v. American Greetings Corp., 304 Ark. 596 , 804 S.W.2d 683, 684 (1991); Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d 654 , 254 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373, 376 (1988) (in bank); Crawford Rehabilitation Servs., Inc. v. Weissman, 938 P.2d 540, 547 (Colo.1997); Magnan v. Anaconda Ind., Inc., 193 Conn. 558 , 479 A.2d 781, 789 (1984); Parnar v. Americana Hotel 2000Accordingly, we hereafter address only O’Bryant’s reinstatement claim. 2 .See Era Aviation, Inc. v. Seekins, 973 P.2d 1137, 1139 (Alaska 1999); "Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370 , 710 P.2d 1025, 1033 (1985) (en banc); Smith v. American Greetings Corp., 304 Ark. 596 , 804 S.W.2d 683, 684 (1991); Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d 654 , 254 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373, 376 (1988) (in bank); Crawford Rehabilitation Servs., Inc. v. Weissman, 938 P.2d 540, 547 (Colo.1997); Magnan v. Anaconda Ind., Inc., 193 Conn. 558 , 479 A.2d 781, 789 (1984); Parnar v. Americana Hotel | 1 | 1 |
Amos v. Oakdale Knitting Co.green2 sentences2000Accordingly, we hereafter address only O’Bryant’s reinstatement claim. 2 .See Era Aviation, Inc. v. Seekins, 973 P.2d 1137, 1139 (Alaska 1999); "Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370 , 710 P.2d 1025, 1033 (1985) (en banc); Smith v. American Greetings Corp., 304 Ark. 596 , 804 S.W.2d 683, 684 (1991); Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d 654 , 254 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373, 376 (1988) (in bank); Crawford Rehabilitation Servs., Inc. v. Weissman, 938 P.2d 540, 547 (Colo.1997); Magnan v. Anaconda Ind., Inc., 193 Conn. 558 , 479 A.2d 781, 789 (1984); Parnar v. Americana Hotel 2000Accordingly, we hereafter address only O’Bryant’s reinstatement claim. 2 .See Era Aviation, Inc. v. Seekins, 973 P.2d 1137, 1139 (Alaska 1999); "Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370 , 710 P.2d 1025, 1033 (1985) (en banc); Smith v. American Greetings Corp., 304 Ark. 596 , 804 S.W.2d 683, 684 (1991); Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d 654 , 254 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373, 376 (1988) (in bank); Crawford Rehabilitation Servs., Inc. v. Weissman, 938 P.2d 540, 547 (Colo.1997); Magnan v. Anaconda Ind., Inc., 193 Conn. 558 , 479 A.2d 781, 789 (1984); Parnar v. Americana Hotel | 1 | 1 |
| Hummer v. Evansgreen | 1 | 1 |
Breen v. Dakota Gear & Joint Co., Inc.green1 sentence2000Accordingly, we hereafter address only O’Bryant’s reinstatement claim. 2 .See Era Aviation, Inc. v. Seekins, 973 P.2d 1137, 1139 (Alaska 1999); "Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370 , 710 P.2d 1025, 1033 (1985) (en banc); Smith v. American Greetings Corp., 304 Ark. 596 , 804 S.W.2d 683, 684 (1991); Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d 654 , 254 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373, 376 (1988) (in bank); Crawford Rehabilitation Servs., Inc. v. Weissman, 938 P.2d 540, 547 (Colo.1997); Magnan v. Anaconda Ind., Inc., 193 Conn. 558 , 479 A.2d 781, 789 (1984); Parnar v. Americana Hotel | 1 | 1 |
| Era Aviation, Inc. v. Seekinsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Maldonado v. Puentegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ginsberg v. Fifth Court of Appealsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Murphy v. Stigallgreen | 1 | 1 |
| LaSorsa v. Burrgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Douglass v. Panama, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Harbin v. Sealegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Reata Construction Corp. v. City of Dallas
green
2 sentences2008For instance, in Reata, the city of Dallas asserted a cross claim for negligence against Reata. 197 S.W.3d at 373 . 2008For instance, in Reata, the city of Dallas asserted a cross claim for negligence against Reata. 197 S.W.3d at 373 . | 3 | 2008–2008 |
Gary Wayne Jaster v. Comet II Construction, Inc., Joe H. Schneider, Laura H. Schneider, and Austin Design Group
green
2 sentences2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Jaster v. Comet II Const., Inc., 438 S.W.3d 556 (2014) 57 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1005 asserting that, “[t]o the extent there is any defect in the act, error, or omission claimed to exist foundation, whether by design or construction, it is the fault of and the factual basis for each such [Jaster or Comet] and not the fault of Austin Design Group.” claim. 2015No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Jaster v. Comet II Const., Inc., 438 S.W.3d 556 (2014) 57 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1005 asserting that, “[t]o the extent there is any defect in the act, error, or omission claimed to exist foundation, whether by design or construction, it is the fault of and the factual basis for each such [Jaster or Comet] and not the fault of Austin Design Group.” claim. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Getty Oil Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America
green
1 sentence2011Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Argonaut Southwest Insurance Company v. Maupin
green
1 sentence2004The court held that, "[a]n intentional tort is neither an ‘accident’ nor 'occurrence' within the terms of the policy.” Maupin, 500 S.W.2d at 636 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Zimmerer v. Smyrl neutral | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Stiles v. Hawkins green | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Latham v. Tombs neutral | 1 | 1929–1929 |
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.