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 3 courts 1974–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Granada Corp. v. Honorable First Court of Appealsgreen2 sentences2013Granada Corp. v. First Court of Appeals, 844 S.W.2d 223, 227 (Tex.1992); In re Gen. 2013Granada Corp. v. First Court of Appeals, 844 S.W.2d 223, 227 (Tex. 1992); In re Gen. | 6 | 6 |
Warrantech Corp. v. Computer Adapters Services, Inc.green2 sentences2010See Granada , 844 S.W.2d at 227 ; Warrantech Corp. v. Computer Adapters Servs ., Inc ., 134 S.W.3d 516, 527 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, no pet.). 2005"The crime/fraud exception applies only if (1) the party asserting it makes out a prima facie case of contemplated fraud and (2) there is a relationship between the document for which the privilege is challenged and the prima facie proof offered." Warrantech Corp. v. Computer Adapters Servs., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 516, 527 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2004, orig. proceeding) (emphasis theirs). | 4 | 4 |
Kugle v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.green2 sentences2004Granada Corp., 844 S.W.2d at 227; Kugle v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 88 S.W.3d 355, 362-63 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002, pet. denied) (en banc op. on reh’g). 2004Granada Corp., 844 S.W.2d at 227; Kugle v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 88 S.W.3d 355, 362-63 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. denied) (en banc op. on reh’g). | 3 | 3 |
Ellis v. Waldropgreen1 sentence2022Lodge, 79 S.W.2d 1084, 1085 (Tex. 1935); cf. Ellis v. Waldrop, 627 S.W.2d 791, 798 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1982) (“When investigation produces facts sufficient to satisfy a prudent inquirer that a recorded claim will not be enforced by its holder, then the inquiring party may be a bona fide purchaser, even where the document from which the claim derives remains of record.”), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 656 S.W.2d 902 (Tex. 1983) (op. on reh’g). | 1 | 1 |
Pustejovsky v. Lodgegreen1 sentence2022Lodge, 79 S.W.2d 1084, 1085 (Tex. 1935); cf. Ellis v. Waldrop, 627 S.W.2d 791, 798 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1982) (“When investigation produces facts sufficient to satisfy a prudent inquirer that a recorded claim will not be enforced by its holder, then the inquiring party may be a bona fide purchaser, even where the document from which the claim derives remains of record.”), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 656 S.W.2d 902 (Tex. 1983) (op. on reh’g). | 1 | 1 |
Freeman v. Bianchigreen1 sentence2005The prima facie proof must show "a violation sufficiently serious to defeat the privilege." Freeman v. Bianchi , 820 S.W.2d 853, 861 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, orig. proceeding). | 1 | 1 |
Beck v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See Beck v. State, 719 S.W.2d 205, 211-12 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (holding that failure to object to unsworn testimony waives irregularity). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Sealed Casegreen1 sentence1993See In re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793, 812-16 (D.C.Cir.1982). | 1 | 1 |
Capital Data Corp. v. Capital National Bankgreen2 sentences1993Bank, 778 F.Supp. 669, 677 (S.D.N.Y.1991). 1993Bank, 778 F.Supp. 669, 677 (S.D.N.Y.1991). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Seigel
green
2 sentences2009In re Seigel, 198 S.W.3d at 28 . 2009In re Seigel, 198 S.W.3d at 28 . -11- The prima facie requirement is met when the proponent offers evidence establishing the elements of fraud and that the fraud was ongoing, or about to be committed at the time the document was prepared. | 3 | 2009–2009 |
Ellis v. Waldrop
green
1 sentence2022Lodge, 79 S.W.2d 1084, 1085 (Tex. 1935); cf. Ellis v. Waldrop, 627 S.W.2d 791, 798 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1982) (“When investigation produces facts sufficient to satisfy a prudent inquirer that a recorded claim will not be enforced by its holder, then the inquiring party may be a bona fide purchaser, even where the document from which the claim derives remains of record.”), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 656 S.W.2d 902 (Tex. 1983) (op. on reh’g). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In Re Honza
green
1 sentence2011Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Bacon v. O'Connor
neutral
1 sentence1982Bacon v. O’Connor, 25 Tex. 213 (Tex.1857); W. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Prine v. State
green
1 sentence1974Under these circumstances admission of the document was error. 3 In Prine v. State, 509 S.W.2d 617 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), we held that it was error, although harmless in that case, to admit a document pursuant to Article 3737e when it was not signed or initialled and there was no proof that it was prepared in the regular course of business. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.