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 2007–2026 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. City of Grapevinegreen2 sentences2016See Hagood v. Cty. of El Paso, 408 S.W.3d 515, 522-23 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2013, no pet.); Davis v. City of Grapevine, 188 S.W.3d 748, 756-57 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied); see also Haggar Apparel Co. v. Leal, 154 S.W.3d 98, 100 (Tex.2004) (“[0]ne purpose of chapter 21 ... is to further the policies of Title I [of the ADA.] Accordingly, in construing and applying chapter 21, we are guided by federal law.”). • To establish a disability discrimination claim, Donaldson, as the plaintiff, had the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of discrimination. 2013“The elements of a ‘reasonable accommodation’ claim overlap the elements of a disability-discrimination claim to some extent.” Artco-Bell Corporation, 2010 WL 1507796 at *2, citing Davis, 188 S.W.3d at 758 . | 5 | 6 |
John R. Turco v. Hoechst Celanese Corporation, Hoechst Celanese Chemical Group, Inc.green2 sentences2021LeBlanc v. Lamar State Coll., 232 S.W.3d 294, 299 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2007, no pet.) (citing Turco v. Hoechst Celanese Corp., 101 F.3d 1090, 1092 (5th Cir. 1996) and Davis v. City of Grapevine, 188 S.W.3d 748, 757 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied)). 2016Turco v. Hoechst Celanese Corp., 101 F.3d 1090, 1092 (5th Cir.1996); Hagwood v. County of El Paso, 408 S.W.3d 515, 523 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2013, no pet.); Davis v. City of Grapevine, 188 S.W.3d 748, 757 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied). | 4 | 4 |
Donaldson v. Texas Department of Aging & Disability Servicesgreen2 sentences2024See Donaldson, 495 S.W.3d at 432 (citing TEX. 2021Donaldson v. Tex. Dep’t of Aging & Disability Servs., 495 S.W.3d 421, 439 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied). | 3 | 3 |
Randy Hagood v. County of El Pasogreen2 sentences2023Hagood, 408 S.W.3d at 524 . 2016See Hagood v. Cty. of El Paso, 408 S.W.3d 515, 522-23 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2013, no pet.); Davis v. City of Grapevine, 188 S.W.3d 748, 756-57 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied); see also Haggar Apparel Co. v. Leal, 154 S.W.3d 98, 100 (Tex.2004) (“[0]ne purpose of chapter 21 ... is to further the policies of Title I [of the ADA.] Accordingly, in construing and applying chapter 21, we are guided by federal law.”). • To establish a disability discrimination claim, Donaldson, as the plaintiff, had the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of discrimination. | 2 | 3 |
Mission Consolidated Independent School District v. Garciagreen2 sentences2026Mission Consol., 372 S.W.3d at 638 (“[S]ome inquiry is necessary because if TCHRA plaintiffs were allowed to stand on talismanic allegations alone, the constraining power of pleas to the jurisdiction would practically be eliminated.”). 2025Mission Consol., 372 S.W.3d at 638 (“[S]ome inquiry is necessary because if TCHRA plaintiffs were allowed to stand on talismanic allegations alone, the constraining power of pleas to the jurisdiction would practically be eliminated.”). | 2 | 2 |
Cornyn v. Speiser, Krause, Madole, Mendelsohn & Jacksongreen2 sentences2015Cornyn v. Speiser, Krause, Madole, Mendelsohn & Jackson, 966 S.W.2d 645, 651 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. denied). 2014Cornyn v. Speiser, Krause, Madole, Mendelsohn & Jackson, 966 S.W.2d 645, 651 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. denied). | 2 | 2 |
Gene A. Burch v. City of Nacogdochesgreen2 sentences2009Burch v. City of Nacogdoches, 174 F.3d 615, 619 (5th Cir. 1999). 2009Burch v. City of Nacogdoches , 174 F.3d 615, 619 (5th Cir. 1999). | 2 | 2 |
El Paso County, Texas v. Mary Lou Vasquezgreen2 sentences2024See El Paso Cty. v. Vasquez, 508 S.W.3d 626, 639 (Tex. App.– El Paso 2016, pet. denied). 2018We indeed stated in Vasquez that in a disability discrimination claim “the relevant determination is whether the plaintiff was disabled at the time of the adverse employment action.” 508 S.W.3d at 639 . | 1 | 2 |
Texas Department of Transportation v. Albert Lara, Jr.green1 sentence2024Lara, 625 S.W.3d at 61; Deville v. Univ. of Tex. M.D. | 1 | 1 |
Nicole Burton v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., etgreen1 sentence2021Even having found that defendants were joint employers for the separate disability discrimination claim, the Court found that, with regard to the Section 451 claim, "since Freescale [the staffing company client] is not the 'subscriber' responsible for [plaintiffs] workers' compensation coverage, the question of employment is beside the point." Burton, 798 F.3d at 242, n. 21 . | 1 | 1 |
LeBlanc v. Lamar State Collegegreen1 sentence2021LeBlanc v. Lamar State Coll., 232 S.W.3d 294, 299 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2007, no pet.) (citing Turco v. Hoechst Celanese Corp., 101 F.3d 1090, 1092 (5th Cir. 1996) and Davis v. City of Grapevine, 188 S.W.3d 748, 757 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied)). | 1 | 1 |
Haggar Apparel Co. v. Lealgreen1 sentence2016See Hagood v. Cty. of El Paso, 408 S.W.3d 515, 522-23 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2013, no pet.); Davis v. City of Grapevine, 188 S.W.3d 748, 756-57 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied); see also Haggar Apparel Co. v. Leal, 154 S.W.3d 98, 100 (Tex.2004) (“[0]ne purpose of chapter 21 ... is to further the policies of Title I [of the ADA.] Accordingly, in construing and applying chapter 21, we are guided by federal law.”). • To establish a disability discrimination claim, Donaldson, as the plaintiff, had the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of discrimination. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. Bibiana Flores
green
1 sentence2023Flores, 555 S.W.3d at 665 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Bradley v. England
green
1 sentence2017In Bradley v. England, 502 F.Supp.2d 259 (D.R.I. 2007) the court granted in part and denied in part a summary judgment in a disability discrimination claim. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.
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.