19 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1920–2010 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thacker v. Thackergreen2 sentences1995Similarly, in Thacker v. Thacker, 496 S.W.2d 201, 204 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1973, no writ), the court noted that there is no right to present argument for or against a motion for summary judgment and that all party participation necessary in a summary judgment proceeding occurs prior to the date set for the hearing. 1993Likewise, in Thacker v. Thacker, 496 S.W.2d 201 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1973, writ dism’d), a defendant in a lawsuit was given notice of the date set for the hearing on the motion for summary judgment but failed to appear. | 1 | 2 |
Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Mirandagreen1 sentence2010See Miranda , 133 S.W.3d at 227 . [5] The reporter’s record reflects that on May 7, 2007, the date set for a hearing on Gatesco’s second application for temporary injunction, the trial court stated, “[I]t is my understanding that this is a temporary injunction. | 1 | 1 |
CNA Insurance Co. v. Scheffeygreen1 sentence2009Co. v. Scheffey, 828 S.W.2d 785, 792-93 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992, writ denied) (A motion to recuse was timely filed because it was filed more than ten days before the date set for hearing on a motion for new trial.). | 1 | 1 |
Hudson v. Texas Children's Hospitalgreen1 sentence2007See Hudson v. Tex. Children's Hosp. , 177 S.W.3d 232 , 239 & n.2 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (Bland, J., concurring) (courts of appeals have been inconsistent on question of whether trial court may deny motion to recuse without referral based on procedural defect). 6. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
REM v. State
green
2 sentences1983Although the court states no reason for failing to set the case within 10 days, no hearing could have been held before the court obtained a mandatory diagnostic study in compliance with Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 54.02(d) (Vernon 1975); R.E.M. v. State, 569 S.W.2d 613 (Tex.Civ.App.Waco 1978, no writ). 1983Although the court states no reason for failing to set the case within 10 days, no hearing could have been held before the court obtained a mandatory diagnostic study in compliance with Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 54.02(d) (Vernon 1975); R.E.M. v. State, 569 S.W.2d 613 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1978, no writ). | 2 | 1983–1983 |
Walker v. Packer
green
1 sentence2008Id. ' 34.04(a),(b), and (e). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Kemp v. State
green
2 sentences1997Kemp, 846 S.W.2d at 305 . 1997Kemp, 846 S.W.2d at 305 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Sosa v. Central Power & Light
green
2 sentences1996Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a(c); Sosa v. Central Power & Light, 909 S.W.2d 893 (Tex.1995). 1996Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a(c); Sosa v. Central Power & Light, 909 S.W.2d 893 (Tex.1995). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Lopez v. Lopez
green
2 sentences1993Lopez v. Lopez, 757 S.W.2d 721 (Tex.1988). 1993Lopez v. Lopez, 757 S.W.2d 721 (Tex.1988). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Gulbenkian v. Penn
green
2 sentences1967In passing upon a motion for summary judgment, all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be reserved against the moving party, and the opposite party is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable inference which can be properly drawn in his favor. *227 Gulbenkian v. Penn, 151 Tex. 412 , 252 S.W. 2d 929 . 1967In passing upon a motion for summary judgment, all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be reserved against the moving party, and the opposite party is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable inference which can be properly drawn in his favor. *227 Gulbenkian v. Penn, 151 Tex. 412 , 252 S.W. 2d 929 . | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Gourley v. Fields
green
1 sentence1967Defendant also relies upon Rule 87, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, in which it is stated in part: “ * * * Such hearing, unless the parties agree upon the date, shall not be had until a copy of such controverting plea, including a copy of such notation thereon, shall have been mailed by registered mail to the defendant or his attorney at the post office address stated in such plea of privilege, or shall have been delivered to defendant or his attorney, at least ten days before the date set for hearing, after which the court shall promptly hear such plea of privilege and enter judgment thereon | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Curry
neutral
1 sentence1965In Texas Employers’ Insurance Association v. Curry, Tex.Civ.App., 347 S.W.2d 334 , writ ref., the letter from insurer demanding an operation was received by the Board on the date set for the hearing. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Standard Insurance Co. v. Biggers
neutral
1 sentence1965The Court held Rule 5.20 to be reasonable and valid, and said: “We therefore hold that since appellant’s written demand for surgery was not timely filed with the Industrial Accident Board under its Rule 5.20, the Board had ample authority to refuse appellant’s demand for surgical operation upon appellee. * * * “Under the record in this cause medical testimony asserting the curative effects of surgery upon a herniated disc was not admissible in evidence in this cause over the objections made by appellee.” See, also, Standard Insurance Company v. Biggers, Tex.Civ.App., 352 S.W.2d 290 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Brown v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company
neutral
1 sentence1964While it is true that Rule 166-A(c), T.R.C.P. provides that “[t]he adverse party prior to the day of hearing may serve opposing affidavits”, we held in the case of Brown v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Tex.Civ.App., 366 S.W.2d 673 , wr. ref. n. r. e., that such provision of the rule was not mandatory and that the court’s action in allowing the answer to be filed on the date of hearing was within the trial court’s discretion. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Ex Parte Nichlos
green
2 sentences1952On November 15, 1951, the date set for the hearing, the cause came on to be heard and resulted in the entry of the order from which Nelly Nichlos, jointly with Steve Nichlos, appealed to this court in our Cause No. 25,696 (Ex Parte Nelly Nichols and Steve Nichols, 245 S.W. 2d 704 .) From the record in this and the former appeal we observe the following additional facts in connection with the hearing on November 15, 1951. 1952On November 15, 1951, the date set for the hearing, the cause came on to be heard and resulted in the entry of the order from which Nelly Nichlos, jointly with Steve Nichlos, appealed to this court in our Cause No. 25,696, Ex Parte Nichlos, Tex.Cr.App., 245 S.W.2d 704 . | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Pyle-Williams & Co. v. De Bord
neutral
1 sentence1927App.] 287 S. W. 143 ; McGhee v. Maxey [Tex. Civ. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Riggins v. Thompson
green
2 sentences1923Chief Justice Phillips, said in the opinion: “In the opinion of this court delivered by Chief Justice Gaines, in Riggins v. Thompson, 96 Tex. 154 , 71 S. W. 14 , the classification of injunctions under our practice is thus stated: “ ‘1. 1923Chief Justice Phillips, said in the opinion: “In the opinion of this court delivered by Chief Justice Gaines, in Riggins v. Thompson, 96 Tex. 154 , 71 S. W. 14 , the classification of injunctions under our practice is thus stated: “ ‘1. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Ex Parte Zuccaro
green
2 sentences1920Ex parte Zuccaro, 106 Tex. 197 , 163 S. W. 579 , Ann. 1920Ex parte Zuccaro, 106 Tex. 197 , 163 S. W. 579 , Ann. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
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.