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 1 courts 1993–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re BLDgreen2 sentences2010In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340 , 350–52 (Tex. 2003) (stating that except for fundamental error, appellate courts are not authorized to consider issues—even constitutional error—not properly raised by the parties and declining to apply the criminal fundamental-error doctrine in parental rights termination cases when complaint involves unpreserved alleged jury charge error), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 945 (2004). 2007See In re B.L.D. , 113 S.W.3d 340, 354 (Tex. 2003), cert. denied , 541 U.S. 945 (2004). | 3 | 4 |
Qwest Communications Corp. v. AT & T CORP.green2 sentences2019The procedural requirements of rule 683 are mandatory, and a temporary injunction that fails to abide by the requirements “is subject to being declared void and dissolved.” Qwest Commc’ns Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 337 (Tex. 2000); see Sargeant v. Al Saleh, 512 S.W.3d 399, 409 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2016, no pet.). 2008Qwest Commc'n Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 337 (Tex. 2000) (per curiam) (citing InterFirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Constr. | 3 | 3 |
United Savings Association of Texas v. Wielergreen2 sentences2004See Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 925 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex. 1996); Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454, 460 (Tex. 1995); Ebner v. First State Bank of Smithville, 27 S.W.3d 287, 297 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. denied). 2004See Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appeals , 925 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex. 1996); Padilla v. LaFrance , 907 S.W.2d 454, 460 (Tex. 1995); Ebner v. First State Bank of Smithville , 27 S.W.3d 287, 297 (Tex. App.--Austin 2000, pet. denied). | 2 | 2 |
Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appealsgreen2 sentences2004See Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 925 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex. 1996); Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454, 460 (Tex. 1995); Ebner v. First State Bank of Smithville, 27 S.W.3d 287, 297 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. denied). 2004See Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appeals , 925 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex. 1996); Padilla v. LaFrance , 907 S.W.2d 454, 460 (Tex. 1995); Ebner v. First State Bank of Smithville , 27 S.W.3d 287, 297 (Tex. App.--Austin 2000, pet. denied). | 2 | 2 |
Ebner v. First State Bank of Smithvillegreen2 sentences2004See Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 925 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex. 1996); Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454, 460 (Tex. 1995); Ebner v. First State Bank of Smithville, 27 S.W.3d 287, 297 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. denied). 2004See Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appeals , 925 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex. 1996); Padilla v. LaFrance , 907 S.W.2d 454, 460 (Tex. 1995); Ebner v. First State Bank of Smithville , 27 S.W.3d 287, 297 (Tex. App.--Austin 2000, pet. denied). | 2 | 2 |
Soto v. Phillips, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facilitygreen2 sentences2010In re B.L.D . , 113 S.W . 3d 340 , 350–52 (Tex . 2003 ) (stating that except for fundamental error, appellate courts are not authorized to consider issues—even constitutional error—not properly raised by the parties and declining to apply the criminal fundamental-error doctrine in parental rights termination cases when complaint involves unpreserved alleged jury charge error), cert. denied , 541 U.S. 945 (2004). 2010In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340 , 350–52 (Tex. 2003) (stating that except for fundamental error, appellate courts are not authorized to consider issues—even constitutional error—not properly raised by the parties and declining to apply the criminal fundamental-error doctrine in parental rights termination cases when complaint involves unpreserved alleged jury charge error), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 945 (2004). | 1 | 3 |
Sargeant v. Al Salehgreen1 sentence2019The procedural requirements of rule 683 are mandatory, and a temporary injunction that fails to abide by the requirements “is subject to being declared void and dissolved.” Qwest Commc’ns Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 337 (Tex. 2000); see Sargeant v. Al Saleh, 512 S.W.3d 399, 409 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2016, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Carson v. Serranogreen1 sentence2018“Texas courts have consistently held that the procedural requirements of rule 18a are mandatory.” Rammah, 235 S.W.3d at 274 ; see Carson v. Serrano, 96 S.W.3d 697, 698 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. denied) (stating party “may not complain about the judge’s failure to recuse himself because” the party “did not follow the procedure prescribed by Rule 18a”); Gill v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 3 S.W.3d 576, 579 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (“If a party does not comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 18a, he waives his right to complain of a judge’s refusal to recuse | 1 | 1 |
Gill v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Divisiongreen1 sentence2018“Texas courts have consistently held that the procedural requirements of rule 18a are mandatory.” Rammah, 235 S.W.3d at 274 ; see Carson v. Serrano, 96 S.W.3d 697, 698 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. denied) (stating party “may not complain about the judge’s failure to recuse himself because” the party “did not follow the procedure prescribed by Rule 18a”); Gill v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 3 S.W.3d 576, 579 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (“If a party does not comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 18a, he waives his right to complain of a judge’s refusal to recuse | 1 | 1 |
In Re Baingreen1 sentence2006See id. 76a(3)-(4), (6); Gen. | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Stategreen1 sentence1997Anderson v. State , 817 S.W.2d 69, 72 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Greenwood v. Stategreen1 sentence1995When the procedures are used, the appellate court must presume that “nothing omitted from the record is relevant to any of the points specified or to the disposition of the appeal.” Id.; see Greenwood v. State, 802 S.W.2d 10, 11 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990), aff'd, 823 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Greenwood v. Stategreen1 sentence1995When the procedures are used, the appellate court must presume that “nothing omitted from the record is relevant to any of the points specified or to the disposition of the appeal.” Id.; see Greenwood v. State, 802 S.W.2d 10, 11 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990), aff'd, 823 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Vickery v. Texas Carpet Co., Inc.green1 sentence1995Vickery v. Texas Carpet Co., Inc., 792 S.W.2d 759, 763 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, writ denied). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Kindergreen1 sentence1995Similarly, in Jones v. Kinder, 807 S.W.2d 868, 872-73 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1991, no writ), the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that supplemental answers need not be verified, because rule 166b(6)(b) does not have a specific verification requirement. | 1 | 1 |
Cronen v. Smithgreen1 sentence1994Cronen v. Smith, 812 S.W.2d 69, 70 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist. 1991, orig. proceeding [leave denied]). | 1 | 1 |
Christiansen v. Prezelskigreen1 sentence1993Christiansen v. Prezelski, 782 S.W.2d 842, 843 (Tex.1990); Nuby v. Allied Bankers Life Ins. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Independent Capital Management, L.L.C. v. Collins
green
1 sentence2021Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Rammah v. Abdeljaber
green
2 sentences2018Id. 2018“Texas courts have consistently held that the procedural requirements of rule 18a are mandatory.” Rammah, 235 S.W.3d at 274 ; see Carson v. Serrano, 96 S.W.3d 697, 698 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. denied) (stating party “may not complain about the judge’s failure to recuse himself because” the party “did not follow the procedure prescribed by Rule 18a”); Gill v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 3 S.W.3d 576, 579 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (“If a party does not comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 18a, he waives his right to complain of a judge’s refusal to recuse | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Davenport v. Garcia
green
1 sentence1995See Tex.R.Civ.P. 76a; Davenport, 834 S.W.2d at 24 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Weaver v. United States Testing Co.
green
1 sentence1995Our decision was based on the fact that the procedural requirements of rule 168(5) do not apply to supplemental written answers to interrogatories. 2 Id. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.